A Betrayal of Their Own Design ► IMBALANCE, DESIGN PRINCIPLES, & SOLUTIONS!
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 авг 2023
- Check description for details.
== If you want to support Design Frame's content: ==
► If you find value in these case studies, please consider Patreon (monetary support per video): / designframe
► Liking, Commenting, and Watch Time help out immensely and will help with the algorithm.
► Watching with RUclips Premium or without an ad blocker also helps. Regardless, your viewership is the most valuable thing to me! So thank you!
► Subscribe and hit the bell to be notified of each new big release! This is essential for keeping the channel alive, but only do so if you find value in these in-depth, quality videos.
These videos require immense time and dedication - 100s of hours. Any support will go a long way, even if not monetary. Regardless, I'm super grateful for every viewer who takes the time to watch!
Vote on polls in the Community tab to influence future videos on this channel! Any direct decisions on ideas that I'm between will only be decided by Patrons in the future.
== Subtitles are available for this video. ==
► Design Frame transcribed the clips used from other RUclips channels.
► Spanish subtitles in-progress.
► RUclips doesn't support basic markup like italics and bold, so I instead represent italics using HTML markup.
Contribute translated subtitles here: amara.org/videos/tpoz0rMlYa0q
== Social media ==
► Join the Discord to build a community!
/ discord
These exist mostly for announcing when a new video has been released. Joining the Discord server is also sufficient for those purposes.
► Twitter: / designframegame
► Facebook: / designframe.casestudies
== Additional credits ==
► Intro logo by Anicaro Motion: / anicaromotion
♫ Music by Lakey Inspired.
License for commercial use: Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported "Share Alike" (CC BY-SA 3.0) License.
♫ Music licensed from Fesliyan Studios.
♫ Most music used is from the Cuphead DLC soundtrack.
► Thumbnail font PAG Karogs made from svg icons (onlinewebfonts) is licensed by CC BY 4.0.
► Stock credits:
Images:
Stock Cake Icon Vector Clip Art by Vectorportal.com, CC BY
Realistic Cuphead (hidden in video): / realistic-cuphead--397...
Check Mark And X Vectors by Vecteezy
Sounds:
Cassette player sounds: Joseph SARDIN - BigSoundBank.com
"Confirmation Common" by original_sound on Freesound.org. Attribution 3.0 license.
"Slide Whistle, Descending, A.wav" by InspectorJ (www.jshaw.co.uk) of Freesound.org. Attribution 4.0 license.
Videos:
Drumming stock videos: cottonbro studio
Woman laying down stock video: Ivan Samkov
A Museum In Lebanon Exhibiting Early Human Tools And Artifacts: Hervé Piglowski
Video Of A Historical Castle: Pixabay
People in a Art Museum: K2 Production
Person Locking The Door With A Key: Rob Cot
creepy-clown-destroying-car-windshield-with-hammer: cottonbro studio
Free Stock Footage Drunk man stumbling: Zom B-Roll (RUclips)
Stop Sign: Hannah Alicbusan
Close-Up View of a Man Looking Pensive: Tima Miroshnichenko
Person Using a Remote Control: Monsieur Sylvain
Woman Whispering Into Man: cottonbro studio
Bubble Text/Speech Animation - Green Screen Graphics: Creative Graphics (RUclips)
HANDWRITING GREEN SCREEN: Foxy GANDA
Abstract Image Of A Black And White Ink: Dan Cristian Paduret
Slow Motion Video Of Bonfire: Free Videos
Thunder And Flash Of Lightning: The Element
Footage of a Silhouette Mountain: CESAR A RAMIREZ V TRAPHITHO
A Woman Dancing Happily In The Middle Of The Field Of Flowers: Taryn Elliott
Close-Up View of Lovely Couple Facing Each Other: Marcus Aurelius
Copyright Disclaimer: Under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research. All video/image content is edited under fair use rights for reasons of criticism, commentary, and education.
#Cuphead #CupheadDLC #MsChalice #IndieGame #IndieGames #GameDesign #GameDev #Gaming #Games #GameAnalysis #VideoEssay
A complete critique and game design analysis of Cuphead: The Delicious Last Course. Design Frame's game design, video game analysis, critique, and review of the Cuphead DLC. It's a Cuphead DLC critique and game design analysis, and a case study of Cuphead's gameplay and story. 
Игры
*_Thank you all for watching!_* It means a lot that y'all would engage with heavy game design like this! Your viewership and Liking the video help a ton and I greatly appreciate each one of you!
*_Here's an FAQ for your interest._* Critical comments are always welcome but please take a look here first, in case I've already addressed it. I address much of these in the video already, some I don't, but I also understand stuff can slip through while watching, and there are more common possible comments than others, so I feel it's best to help clarify.
*1. Pacing/repetition* ► From generalized feedback, we have determined behind-the-scenes that I repeat the topic of Ms. Chalice / Astral Cookie a couple of times unnecessarily. Other callouts based on pacing or tone is due to moments where I don't slow down the pacing of my speech. I appreciate the feedback and I'll keep improving my videos with this in mind. A quick note on length: the video is as long as it is because it's comprehensive and covers pretty much every possible angle and argument with attention given to not making it too difficult to follow. This includes a wide array of solutions. I encourage you to give it a chance!
*2. Surrealism* ► Yes, surrealism is illogical and cartoonish, but that isn't the issue. Its illogical nature can be used well if it's used to enhance a boss' theme and mechanics rather than seeming random. Bosses should lean on and draw mechanics out of a central theme, and surrealism can be used to great effect there rather than derailing that central theme. The core of it is related to how surrealism is used in conjunction with gameplay, because, unlike cartoons, gameplay can't be divorced from it. The thesis only contains a high-level overview of the concept and how it applies to Cuphead, so I don't go into detail. I talk more about core/central themes in the next video and the gameplay ramifications of them.
*3. "Just don't use the items then."* ► They're options for players to use that are accessible early on, and the mindset behind it is quite simply, "Why would I use anything else here if this thing helps me the most?" You should expect players to use the content that is given to them (this doesn't mean they will, but it has to be assumed). Player options is what you want in a game like Cuphead because it emphasizes player choice and playstyles rather than the meta, no matter whether a player actually uses those options or not. This doesn't mean the options have to be less fun, they just have to be either situational or relatively balanced against each other.
There's also a difference between difficulty and content, in that the items shouldn't be the difficulty slider. Simple Mode almost provides an easier difficulty but falters in several ways that ends up only complementing Regular Mode. In this video, I only convey the current purpose of Simple Mode and not what it could've been as a difficulty system (outside of saying that it shouldn't have excluded the last phase of bosses, which is a poor way of both complementing Regular Mode and implementing difficulty). For the purposes of this video, I assume the singular difficulty demographic that Studio MDHR established as their design intent, even if that can be criticized. Items shouldn't and cannot be the difficulty substitute in this case.
They wouldn't be good accessibility options either since then it removes player options and choice from those players who need those accessibility options (as in, they can't use anything else). Labeling these options with some kind of "difficulty rating" also reduces player options across each rating. Those last two options, however, do have pros and cons, but aren't ideal in Cuphead. Power creep works in a game like Magic: the Gathering for very specific reasons that don't apply here (the reasons are beyond the scope of this video). It's important to recognize that we aren't here to apply a bandage to the problem. We're here to fix the problem.
*4. "Play the game in order, from Isle 1 to 4."* ► The previous answer applies here as well. I do want to re-emphasize though that Isle 4 and Ms. Chalice are accessible from Isle 1, and DLC items from Isle 2 (or sooner if you go to The King's Leap before Isle 2). Isle 4 is also intended to be around the Isle 3 difficulty, so the base game and DLC charms should not differ in power level in that regard as well.
*5. "The OP items are fun so I want to keep them."* ► This assumes that only OP can be fun, which isn't true but also is quite a shallow and fleeting feeling. Again, the options don't have to be less fun, they just have to be either situational or relatively balanced against each other, and if well-designed, will be fun. It's natural to temporarily yearn for OP equipment, but that's not healthy for the game (other than Divine Relic) and, again, is only a desire to satiate a lack of patience and commitment in a game that demands it, a desire that only exists here in the first place because of the initial poor design of the equipment.
*6. Difficulty* ► This is a complex topic. I establish Studio MDHR's design intent in regards to difficulty and their arcade demographic because that's all that's needed for the purposes of this video. A deeper discussion of difficulty doesn't quite fit here but rather a future video, and I'm also learning more on this topic. Again though, this video assumes Studio MDHR's one intended difficulty, and the game's design discussed in this video is in regard to that difficulty.
To expound a bit more on this topic: Cuphead assumes a singular default player which narrows the audience to a fixed demographic (and to be clear, this affects both less AND more skilled players). Obviously it'd be great if players with different physical capabilities could have the same experience, but also difficulty isn't as easy as many lazy implementations make it look to be, such as making enemies bullet sponges. Studio MDHR most likely didn't have the knowledge or development capability (including time and resources) to do this. We can see evidence of this with Simple Mode's lack of a last phase but also the new addition of the extra health that Djimmi provides from spinning in circles. The goal would be to look at which adjustable options are useful and which run counter to the game's design. For Cuphead, the aim is to test the player's knowledge of attack patterns and keep up the pace of lose-fast quickly-try-again. Djimmi's health doesn't do this but instead provides the same potentially physically impossible experience for certain players but with a higher chance to brute force it, which simply isn't a fun or satisfying way to approach difficulty. This is just one example, but it showcases the complexity of difficulty and why the attempts at it in Cuphead aren't implemented well but understandably so.
I’d recommend pinning this so it doesn’t get buried. I’ll read the clarification after I finish the video
@@spicybreadproductions1972 Whoops, it was pinned but I forgot to re-pin it (comments automatically unpin when they're edited).
Seeing Edmund McMillen tear up at the thought of inspiring people into game development really hit me. What a fantastic reminder of just how lucky we are that indie games not only exist, but can be just as popular as the games made by massive studios and companies. What a world.
After I heard that Studio MDHR were inspired by the 360 era of games, I just HAD to include that Edmund clip :)
That clip literally fuels my love for design
I always consider miss chalice as easy mode that journalist asked for.
Unfortunately it's no easier to jump over the tutorial wall with her 😢
@@KaitouKaiju lmao 😂
I entered the video confused about what design failures cuphead could possibly have, and left agreeing with nearly everything you said. Excellent video, and wonderful editing!
Thank you! That's an amazing compliment :)
Everyone know the real difficulty is in playing with someone else.
I haven't played it co-op, but is it harder? I'm pretty sure each player deals 50% but if one dies then the last deals 100% instead, plus you can revive each other. But I also imagine two people taking up room gets crowded so it becomes much harder visually.
@@DesignFrameCaseStudies Since enemies projectiles alternate between players you have to be aware of the other player's position at all times, and 90% of our deaths were trying to revive each other.
Plus it’s even harder to S-rank or even B-rank as health lost is counted between both players
Gotcha, that makes sense!
I read the title, got confused, and am now reveling in how analytic this whole channel is. This is the best kind of game analysis.
Thank you so much! That's my goal so I'm glad it's working out :) Is the title not something that attracted or interested you? If not, I'll have to rethink the title to something more attractive. But at the same time, I'm aware that this video in particular won't be reaching a wide audience. Perhaps the next video might since it's focused on a boss instead.
the worst part about the power creep and equipment that cheapens the experience in games for me is the type of mind game it makes me play. i have to analyze the tools given to me and decide which ones are “fair” to use. it doesn’t feel good to have to think about what i shouldn’t use. i want to be able to trust the game and trust that i will have fun by playing the way the game presents itself to me. it doesn’t bother me to a point that it ruins the experience but it does give this faint underlying stress making me wonder if i’m playing “correctly”
edit: 2:30:00 oh my god game designer final boss time
That's definitely part of it too! Some will optimize it, which is bad in this case, while others will stay away from certain options, which is also quite bad. Everything should be a fun, balanced option!
Most of the problems could just be solved if the game required you to no hit bosses for s rank instead of just having 3hp
That's one of the solutions I talk about in the second half, and is how the game worked before the DLC released even. It's definitely an interesting topic.
I'm looking forward to Doggone Dog tbh. It's the only dlc boss with a secret stage AND it has the screen turning mechanic. Plus I think the choice of which boss got a secret stage was really clever. Of course only one boss could have it considering its only one isle, so why not give it to the boss with a polarizing mechanic like screen turning, allowing some players to skip that aspect if they wish and play through the third stage normally?
That's a great point! I'd like it if there was some kind of hint in the overworld for it though, 'cause I'm pretty sure people are either gonna accidentally find it when they'd be fine completing the boss normally, or they find out online in the wiki after the fact.
@DesignFrameCaseStudies yeah tbh I feel like the base game secret bosses were much easier to find organically than the newest one!
I... had literally never tried the sugar or whetstone before. Because I read it as one parry / one attack per fight and they both sounded stupid. I don't think I would ever consider "first parry move" to mean once per jump? I can't say for sure but I think if I found out how these actually work without you explaining it I'd just think "oh, the description is wrong. They should fix that."
Exactly! It really confused me as well.
Whole reason I also didn't use either. With that added context, whetstone actually sounds decent
Heart Ring rework idea:
While your HP is less than 3, anything that would grant super instead builds a separate meter that restores 1 point of lost health when full. (slower to fill than 1 card, but faster than the entire super meter - maybe 8-10 parries per health, before factoring in super from damage? idk, haven't played the game in years)
Upside: potentially infinite health if you can parry often enough, ability to recover from hits if we keep the current HP bonus
Downside: no supers/EXes unless you can stay at full health
This is a cool idea
Live in exchange of power so during the time you are recovering you need to be extra careful 👍
8 to 10 seems too much tho maybe 3 or 4 maximum
So, to avoid cheating myself out of clearing whatever S Ranks are left:
1. Don't use Heart Ring.
2. Don't use Crackshot.
I would say that Ms. Chalice is also a no-go, but there's two problems with this idea: the first being that I _have_ to use her against all bosses (that unlocks a gold skin for her), and the second is that her increased parry window is more than offset by her lack of parry _control._
Cuphead can consistently parry things above and below him, Chalice cannot. This, I believe, is enough to put her back into _reasonable_ territory.
Unless I'm using Shield Heart. Speaking of:
3. Don't use Shield Heart.
She has more air control due to her double jump, so she's able to adjust to the new dash-parry, plus he's more consistent at parrying below him than above, and even then it's still a risk.
long videos like this are unironically what keep me going, thank you so much for making something not only lengthy but worthy of my time. this video was well made and informative without really being tiring
Thank you so much! :) That was the goal and one reason why this video took so long to make, so I'm very glad to hear this! A lot of effort went into the Solutions stuff to not make it tiring.
great video, love the rant at 2:30:00. would love to see a exploration on breath of the wild design as well since u did mention the stamina system has its faults (which i agree).
Thank you! Yeah I put that acoustic music in at the end 'cause I realized it sounded angry so I tried to offset it :p I just got Tears of the Kingdom a couple days ago so I'm thinking of working on that!
I deliberately am not using chalice or the crackshot until i have beaten expert mode at least once so that i have the challenge. It is far more rewarding this way but I'm sure that playing it again with these things will be real refreshing.
Currently at 1:44:30, but I'll throw my hat in the ring for a solution to the HP Bonus issue with Heart Ring: Make heart ring heal instead of boosting max hp.
This forces the player to _avoid_ parrying until they take damage unless they want to sacrifice their first heal, a maneuver which limits their options in a meaningful way to encourage others to be taken, also giving them agency and choice over the bonuses they receive. Additionally, this makes it more challenging to get the parry requirement for mastery as opposed to the HP bonus, requiring careful consideration of an advanced player over what is most appropriate to focus on in that moment for that particular boss. This gives us useful healing without broken mastery requirements.
In terms of usefulness to casual vs advanced players, that would provide greater balance to casual players who get hit but still need to make choices as to when they parry, receiving the full 9 hits to clear in a best case scenario.
But this would still make advanced players - who prefer to avoid damage and utilize parrying as an option to do so - consider how they have to play until they want to utilize their charm for the hp bonus requirement, then go back to doing so while at full hp.
On a similar note, I believe Crackshot could be balanced by drastically reducing its shot speed. This leaves Chaser as an option for long range or fast-moving targets, perfect for absolute consistency, while letting Crackshot lose some of that consistency on different targets in exchange for its damage output. A stationary or big target takes more consistent damage - as with Roundabout - while a moving target requires precise shot placement or a different weapon.
49:31 another thing to add here about whetstone is the charm allows you to parry on enemies you weren’t able to parry onto before
(this is the coolest charm by far with skill ceiling stuff it’s so fun to not only use it to damage the boss but parry off of an obstacle or a minion to correct a mistake situationally. the fact this isn’t even vaguely referenced in the description of the game is infuriating)
Fantastic point! I didn't realize that lol
I think you overestimate Charge. It adds a high level of extra mental overhead that makes it difficult to use optimally while also paying attention to the boss. To use it optimally the way you describe it, you need to pay attention to when it's charged and constantly switch between dodging and aiming--not necessarily based on when the right opportunity arises, but based on when the charge comes up. This often means either waiting extra long to deal damage or putting yourself into a situation you'd normally not deem worth the risk to get the damage in immediately. And if you do miss after all this, you need to charge it all the way up again. Even just the skill to get down the rhythm of when the weapon will be charged and releasing the button at the right time is a specific muscle you have to train that other weapons just don't have
While some players might be good enough to make very optimal use of Charge all the time, I only deemed all this extra overhead worth it for specific scenarios when I was getting all S ranks pre-DLC (and post-DLC, as I avoided using Chalice and any of the heart charms, as I also considered them OP), such as on Brineybeard, where most shots from other weapons would miss most of the time anyway since you need to jump/stand in a specific spot to hit him, or the final phase of baroness von bon bon, where I find myself spending a large amount of time dodging and a small amount of time actually having an opportunity to hit the boss
Was thinking this throughout as well. It’s definitely harder to manage the charge timing versus any other weapon (just holding down the button almost constantly), and I feel that’s an appropriate downside for the high consistency. In addition, the unique timing minigame offers a distinct playstyle compared to any other weapon.
Very thought provoking video. Can’t wait for the boss analysis!
Thank you very much!
Interesting video. I never thought it'd be possible for such power creep to occur in a game with so few items/characters in it.
That said, I feel like this video is a bit too long for its own good. It's good to be exhaustive when talking about stuff like this, but you do end up repeating yourself a lot. If the information density was a bit higher it'd be a more engaging watch, I feel. Still, your script for this video was better than your security breach one (I liked that video a lot, but you were kinda rambly), so keep it up. You clearly know what you're talking about and you offer some great insights/solutions to problems.
Thank you for the feedback! I'm a bit conflicted on the length, because yeah it feels longer given the topic, but I feel like I only really repeat myself when it's required for a point or if it's the conclusion or result of a point, which happens quite frequently in a topic video like this where I lay out the thesis then go into detail on how things affect or result in that thesis. Half of the video is a multitude of solutions as well. I don't think it's possible to reduce this without leaving holes in the argument or making it too difficult to follow, because I'm not sure what I would cut, so maybe it's just a consequence of being comprehensive in a topic video, or maybe I'm just yet to be able to recognize how to cut things down slightly. I'll keep this in mind for future videos.
I've determined with my script editor that it seems like I repeat the topic of Ms. Chalice a couple of times unnecessarily. Thanks for bringing this to my attention!
No problem. Keep it up! As an aspiring game dev, videos like this are invaluable.
Alright, confirmation you arent dead, nice.
This isn't my full-time job unfortunately, so these videos take many months to make. Thank you for waiting :)
@@DesignFrameCaseStudies completely understandable! Your content is extremely high quality, and the wait is worth it. Hopefully as more people find your channel, it'll grow into a feasible career.
Thank you very much! I hope that's the case :)
I must say, you make some extremely good content. Your videos are the type I'd expect for a large channel. I hope you blow up one day. And the analysis and explanations for flaws in game design are really helping me avoid flaws in my own game, so thank you for the well-written explanations and exposition.
Thank you very much! I'm happy to hear it's at least helping someone out there :)
When Jacksepticeye replayed the game when the DLC game came out he was able to 1 shot Rumor Honeybottoms final face using Miss Chalice's Ilse 1 special.
That's because it takes Rumor so long to transition that much of the damage can be dealt before, depending on the attack she's currently performing when the transition would trigger. Ms. Chalice's Super #1 also deals more than Cuphead's, and can shave a couple seconds off, according to what I tested. It's not enough to really notice but I'm sure it's a good way to finish Rumor off. But either way, Rumor is definitely notorious for her delayed transition.
Amazing video, I found it very entertaining. I came into this unsure of what you could criticize and I ended up agreeing with every single thing you said. The part where you mention only using the smoke bomb was a big realization for me and you're entirely right, knowing the damage values the Heart charms lower changes my view of them entirely. Anyways, I am still super interested in seeing part 2 of your Skyward Sword design talk playthrough!
Hey, I remember you from the Skyward Sword video :p Thank you very much! :)
great video!! super interesting to listening to technical features and faults of game design in such a detailed way. 10/10
Thank you! I'm glad you liked it!
I looooove your videos!! Thank you so much for all the effort and analysis you put into these :) Excited to watch this one, always wanted more talk about the dlc and a vid from you is basically as perfect as it could get
Oh wow, sincerely thank you so much! That's very kind of you :) I hope I won't let you down!
Great video! Great explanation! Great arguments! Great solutions! Everything is great, keep up the good work!
Thank you so much! :)
Good to see you back my man
Thank you! If only they didn't take so long to make!
Enjoying it so far, I think there's a failure in the way people consider difficulty levels though.
The lack of difficulty levels is often justified in terms of control over player experience (as here), but the fact of the matter is that the player is unknown and that the game's experience is not a default thing that exists, but an interaction between an actual player and the content (this is kind of modified version of reader response theory, made more pertinent by the fact games are interactive).
I'd thus argue that including one difficulty isn't 'control over the player experience', it's a complete lack of control because you haven't designed any modifiable structures to respond to that part of the experience, there's no flexibility in the design there and thus player experience will end up being controlled entirely by the variations in player ability.
I think the idea that players will always use easier options is incredibly flawed, as the majority of players I've known will deliberately avoid easier options in video games for the sake of not feeling condescended to (obviously you modulate this with how you name the options. Normal-Hard-Very Hard is more likely to have players play Normal than Easy-Normal-Hard, just from anecdotal experience) and that's even ignoring replay on higher difficulty levels and communities like speed runners who prove the audience for deliberately harder than necessary challenges.
I think overall, the diffculty argument falls to assumption of a singular default player, and that normal is a way guaranteeing an experience because it would fit this player. This is not true. This doesn't mean that the designers of Cuphead were required to provide wider access options (though I will admit that lack was entirely behind me not owning the game, since I know my disability would make it inaccessible, despite really enjoying its general vibe) but we should be realistic that a lack of modifiable speed, complexity or so on is actually a rigidity in the design that renders a particular experience harder to guarantee, not easier. In practice, this often means that it narrows the audience to a fixed demographic.
(Edit: I should make this more clear, this cuts both ways. Not adjusting difficulty also means that more skilled players will lack the desired experience, because they beat the game too easily. I've seen some players (allegedly) sight read bosses and obviously they lose out on the intended emotional experience if the game doesn't include options to make the game harder).
Sorry if this reads as preachy, it's not intended to be. I know these sort of discussions often arouse passionate defenders on both sides. I also think they're had in terms that are patently fallacious. Difficulty options aren't a way to side step the emotional experience of a game, they're a way to ensure the player has that emotional experience, by admitting the designers lack fo control over player ability and allowing the player to disclose that feature, to make sure they have the desired experience (though flat 'difficulty levels' are kind of a blunt force tool for doing this, I'm rather frustrated that design discussions often stop at them). I'd argue a better argument against difficulty level is just that it essentially multiples the number of audiences you're considering experience for, which takes programming time, resources and knowledge. Each difficulty level or adjustable setting opens up a new question about who intended audience is and how they're experience is going to influence the game. I can't fault designers for lacking the knowledge to do this, and thus not doing so (most likely the majority of their quality testers were able bodied and that's not a fault, it's just a practical reality of an exclusionary wider culture and of a small studio spending its resources within that context in a way that will optimise its available skills).
I think we often treat difficulty as a real thing that exists tangiably within the game, when it's actually an emergent experience coming from a variety of interactions between mechanics and abilities (and I mean here abilities like 'hand movement speed' or 'sensory processing abilities'. If one wanted to test game knowledge, or familiarity, projectile speed is a really bad way to do that, with patterns and surprises like the bugs fake out being way better. If the actual intended experience was 'the player fails then learns 'next time I need to do x' adjustible difficulty settings like being able to slow the bosses down would actually be the way you'd ensure this. Otherwise you risk a player having the unintended experience of 'I know what I need to do. I know how to do it and I am physically incapable of actually performing that task'). Not including adjustable settings leaves a whole side of that interaction unaccounted for and opens the space for massive amounts of unintended player experiences (for better or worse) so it's actually counter to the intentions of the designers if they wanted a unified player experience, not to include some way for players to modulate difficulty (and this doesn't have to be a manual difficulty setting. They could build in a first level that throws things at you until they work out how fast you can react, and then have all the bosses auto-adjust to that difficulty like the old Matrix games tried to do. At the same time, it's realistic that not every developer is going to have the knowledge, skills or time to examine their specific game and work what adjustible elements will render the intended experience widely accessible.
So yeah, sorry again that that's a bit long. (Dis)ableism and access in media is one of my passions as is the way that readers/viewers/players contribute to the experience of a piece of media, so the way these conversations are had as if difficulty modes were only option and that they're crutches for abled players to have different experiences has always really annoyed me. Making a game more adjustible makes it easier, not harder to guarantee an experience and we should honestly be impressed whne games manage an innovative way to make their core intended experience obvious and achievable (like how Celeste lets you adjust speed of movement so that's testing level knowledge and not reaction speed) rather than seeing some amorphous ill-defined 'difficulty' as either a totem to laud (after all a game that relies heavily on reaction speed can either be a brilliantly fast-paced work out, or a sign that the developer didn't telegraph their intentions properly) or to adjust as a whole. Rather I wish we looked more at what adjustable options were useful and what were counter to the game design (so for example with Cuphead you'd probably want options to slow down the pace of enemies or remove visual clutter. But you wouldn't want an easy mode that added invincibility, removed types of attack, granted new abilities that rendered some elements avoidable or gave more health, since the aim is to test the players knowledge of attack patterns and keep up a quick pace of die-tryagain-die-tryagain).
Hey thank you for the thoughtful comment! I can't type a worthy response right now but wanted to at least acknowledge it in the meantime.
Excellent writeup. No notes.
Alright, I fully read this through and I honestly do agree, this was well thought-out. The goal of me mentioning difficulty was simply to establish their design intent so I can move on to the video's purpose, but I also now recognize how I could've mentioned a couple extra things to establish that intent. Studio MDHR just wanted something that the arcade demographic could play and that's all I really care about for the specific purposes of this video, BUT that doesn't make what you said any less important. Your thoughtful write-up will legitimately be useful in the future when I bring up difficulty because I do think it's important to recognize and properly convey. I'm also big on dynamic difficulty, like you mentioned, since one thing that always gets me is the idea of how am I supposed to know what difficulty is intended or the difference between them? I always choose Normal but what if another difficulty is a better experience for me? I'll never know because there's no way to tell and difficulty options are rarely thought out enough in games anyway, like enemies becoming bullet sponges which is never fun for anyone. But that's another rant lol.
Out of curiosity, I'd also be interested in what games you love because they implement difficulty properly in one way or another. I'd love to have the examples to be able to pull out in general but also to potentially make a video out of because it's an interesting but complex topic, although I suppose everything is complex in game design haha.
@@DesignFrameCaseStudies It is indeed, yeah.
Being a bit more positive I did really like your slider system for managing adjustments and the way you differentiated between just beating the boss and beating them with a good score, that seems like a great way to apprach these in a way that can both respond to the unique challenges of a game while still being readable.
As for examples, some of the Silent Hill's (I think 2 and 3) have separate difficulty setting for puzzles and combat, which let you decide whether you want a game that's testing your combat or logic skills, Celeste has kind of legendary customisable difficulty and Dishonoured 2 was supposed to be very good with them. Annoyingly, I have more bad examples than good, I've got mild co-ordination issues (cerebral palsy) so I spent a lot of time discounting myself out of faster paced games into puzzle and text-based where there was less chance of the hitting a wall from having to press three buttons at once (I hit a lock out with Sunless Skies just because they switched a mechanic from the previous game so that instead of pressing a button to go forwards you have to hold it down and just that adjustment and some slightly more responsive controls was enough to make it impossible for me to steer and shoot at the same time, which is a shame because the writing in those games is incredible). Games that let you turn of QTEs (Sony's Spider-man) or simplify controls (I gather the new Street Fighter, though I haven't played it) are a godsend.
In terms of resources, I've quite liked Laura K. Buzz's stuff (she's generally accessiblity focused but she has some stuff looking at difficulty through that light that's my source for the Dishonoured example).
Either way, thank you for the response. I always worry a little when I write long things (which seem to be the only things I write) that I'm jumping down people throats so I'm glad to hear it was interesting.
Edit: I somehow forgot Minecraft existed. Bit of a cliche but obviously the shift between survival and creative mode, is a difficulty setting that lets you toggle whether you're here to play a survival game or a building and art game.
@@packman2321 Thanks for the examples! I also have a question on your original comment, if you don't mind. When you said earlier "If one wanted to test game knowledge, or familiarity, projectile speed is a really bad way to do that," are you saying projectile speed is bad in the sense of slowing down the quick lose-fast pacing? And/or in the sense of projectile speed not actually changing the physical capabilities required for it but instead just slower (and thus probably requires more precision since you don't want to land on top of a slow moving projectile after jumping over it). It seems like it might help with reaction times though, but it also sounds like you're saying having less projectiles in the pattern or slowing enemy/boss movement (or frequency of attacks?) is preferable.
Amazing video :) appreciate all the work that must have gone into it!
Pause, how was this commented so early?
@@omega2876a Patreon bonus is early access to content!
@@omega2876 Early Access via my Patreon :)
Thank you very much! :D
Nice to see new content from you again :)
Thanks for watching :)
@@DesignFrameCaseStudies you’re welcome :)
There is another thing I'm separating out because it's more fundamental. And that is: Simply put, you're conflating two concepts that aren't the same. Challenge and punishment. It's a common misconception that these are interchangeable, but they aren't.
The level of challenge in a game refers to the intensity or complexity of actions required to succeed. In contrast, the level of punishment is the exact inverse - the penalty for failure. A game can have one but not the other, and vice versa.
If you're fighting a boss that's extremely aggressive, has a lot of complex attacks, and requires a specific method of counterattacking to beat, that's challenging, as opposed to fighting a giant, barely mobile health pool. But the game could also give you a lot of defense and healing, such that constantly taking damage during the fight isn't necessarily a fail state - that would make the fight less punishing. The key there is that the challenge itself stays static; you still have to play at the same high level of complexity and intensity to win. It's just that mistakes punish you less. Conversely, if the giant health meatball could kill you in one hit, that would be very much non-challenging but also extremely punishing.
Now, the problem is that most people don't seem to make this distinction, and difficulty is often mistakenly understood in terms of the singular idea of "Hard". This creates what's known as the problem of Fake Difficulty, because more often than not, it's easier to make things Hard by increasing the punishment rather than increasing the challenge. It costs less in dev time and resources to crank up boss damage and health than it does to add new moves or make the AI more aggressive. Sometimes developers also make the mistake of adjusting these things simultaneously with no way to have one or the other, creating difficulty that's more than the sum of its parts and likely higher than the devs intended.
Items like Heart Ring do not reduce challenge. The boss is just as fast, just as aggressive, has just as much health. You've experienced this yourself. Were the chef's first two phases really any easier? I think not. The game just became less punishing, so you could reach the end of the fight without hitting a fail state. But didn't you have to engage with the exact same boss as everyone else? The challenge remained static. The penalty for not meeting it as consistently as other players moved. If the ring had made enemy projectiles slower, for instance, that would have made the boss less challenging - but you would still have as much room for error as before, making it equally punishing.
Puzzle games illustrate this perfectly. Baba Is You isn't a punishing game. It doesn't lock you out of the game for not beating a puzzle. It has no timers, no lives, nothing but the obstacles before you and the toolkit you're given and an expectation of completion. But anyone who says Baba Is You isn't challenging is either a genius at puzzles or lying. Flappy Bird isn't all that challenging - you have one input and a simple, unchanging type of obstacle - but it's extremely punishing. One pixel out of place and you die.
Personally, I overwhelmingly prefer challenging games that aren't very punishing. They're more interesting and engaging than just shrinking the room for error. But that's just me.
I slightly disagree on the separation of challenge and punishment, but only on the punishment side.
Challenge doesn't need punishment and a lack of punishment can make the challenge more engaging, because you can retry as fast and as often as you want.
But punishment is dependent on challenge, because a punishment only matters as much as its likelihood of enforcement. A harsh punishment that isn't enforced doesn't matter and a small punishment that happens all the time is extremely frustrating. Which makes the seemingly "popular" combination of high challenge and high punishment so bizarre to me, because it should be the inverse.
Context is also important, because instant failure means different things in different games. Flappy Bird as a high score chaser, resets you to the start and doesn't really give you the chance to retry from an already accomplished score, its an test of endurance. Celeste and Super Meat Boy on the other hand also have instant failure, but the point of failure is also usually kept close and retries are fast, with the exception of challenge levels. All three have instant death as a punishment with high enforcement rate, but actually marginal loss of progress in the latter two cases.
Celeste lets you change the rate of enforcement in the form accessibility options that lower the challenge, but with that also the experienced severity of the punishment. But changing the punishment in a game, will most likely not change the challenge. Just the amount of frustration.
@@MischievousCassowary Those actually are good points. I was rolling through this one quickly and didn't have as much time to think through all my points on this, as opposed to the first part where I talked more about intrinsic versus extrinsic reward and optimization. I have actually thought through some of the points you made in the past, but they slipped my mind. So thanks for adding this part.
I do think the most fun play spaces exist generally where challenge is high, but punishment is either low or quick to recover from. Removing or minimizing downtime between attempts is a great way to make players more inclined to retry. My personal bias, however, is toward a design space where there's plenty of room to make mistakes. This is because it enables a lot more counterplay - especially in combat focused games. If you can take a bunch of hits and heal them back, it opens up the gameplay to allow for more close calls and clutch moments, which is exciting. If enemies can't kill you instantly, then you have more time to react, but the devs can also design around things that aren't binary success/fail states.
Another banger by you. Your channel is so underrated, keep up the great work!
Thank you very much!
My one thought is instead of making crackshot a close range weapon, I'd make its damage increase the further the shot travels to better compliment the goal of placing the turret out of harms way, instead of forcing the player to change gears from an up close barrage to backing off and placing the turret. In my experience, something that necessitates a playstyle that effectively reverses its goals periodically becomes a major hassle especially when simpler and equally effective options are present.
Yeah, if anything, that proves what I talk about with the limited design space. The P. Turret idea may just be too complicated compared to the alternatives to be worth it, despite being a different, interesting playstyle. Also, the increase-damage-the-further-it-travels idea is actually something I address with Studio MDHR's scrapped Ranger idea. I don't think the concept really works for Cuphead. The weapon would essentially force players to stay at range at all times, but then that could limit player's options in placing the turret depending on the boss. I think it's more interesting to let players decide where to place it rather than forcing it, so players can place the turret in Werner's 2nd phase, for instance, to great effect. If the weapon had a Ranger effect then that wouldn't be possible. Also, if Crackshot is only short/medium range, then it won't be optimal to go out of their way to place the turret in the back, which isn't necessarily safer depending on the boss anyway. So players have to experiment and make the most of it rather than a potentially boring playstyle of running back-and-forth. However, it's also possible that we make Crackshot into a Peashooter or something or maybe just increase its range. It's also possible that it creates a boring playstyle regardless, but it's at least one that I think has a high chance of working and wouldn't outright break the game.
Started watching this after I saw your comment on the Shipwrecked OST, and I took the time to watch this video. It is seriously fascinating, as a game developer myself a lot of these things seem almost like the team was attempting to "One-Up" their original game and just got a bit lost in the sauce. Stuff like the Astral Cookie are things I'm shocked got past playtesting in their current state, it's about as confusing as it is interesting.
I like the fact you go in depth with these issues too, it's so easy for critics to go like "Oh, yeah the devs messed this up SO BADLY, they should be ashamed". While you do have a level of "How did this even happen" in the video, you actually go in depth on how to rebalance it. That's cool! And as a dev it's seriously appreciated! Great work! Joined the Patreon!
Wow, thank you so much! I'm glad my intentions are coming through so well. I want that level of "what happened?" because it's part of the engagement factor, for lack of a better term (and also legitimately there are a lot of design decisions in games that make me question the playtesting, like you said haha), but I also think it's important to give the benefit of the doubt and consider their design intent. And I also aim to dissect the actual design, since I don't see that very often. So I'm always very happy to see that people appreciate it, especially fellow designers!
You're just in time too, 'cause the next video is JUST about to release. You should have access to it early via Patreon now :) Though I'm still working on the subtitles, if that's important to you.
Thanks again!
I don’t really get the problem with having better items, since you will usually play the fourth isle last.
That'd be fine in games that support a pure upgrade system, where future items negate past items, but that goes against the goal of player options. Player options is what you want in a game like Cuphead because it emphasizes player choice and playstyles rather than the meta.
Oh, so it’s to make past items actually used more. I get it now, especially since items like crack shot overshadow most other weapons
Oh glad to see another video by you! I've lost count of how many times I've listened to your SB video since it was SO GOOD. Keep it up!
Thank you very much! I hope you like it!
this is amazing! you're criminally underwatched and undersubbed
Thank you so much! I really appreciate it :)
After watching this I've been thinking about how to make Crackshot more balanced. One idea I came up with involves making every shot act more like P. Turret. Basically, what if Crackshot lingered in the air for a few seconds before naturally cracking and homing in on the target, but you can parry the shot to crack it early.
To explain, letting the shots naturally crack would deal less damage than or on par with a single Chaser shot. Parrying the floating shots would deal far more damage, closer or slightly more than a single Lobber shot. The lingering uncracked shots can hit the boss if they move into them or are shot directly into the boss, each dealing damage in between the natural cracking and parry cracking. However, parrying these shots would not let you gain Super Cards, add to the Parry score, or work with Heart Ring and would only bounce you up half as high as parrying anything else. You would need to find the correct timing to set up a few shots then manually crack them to hit the boss but also dodge their incoming attacks. You could also set up a trap for a boss that likes to move a lot like Goopy Le Grande, Sally Stageplay, or the Moonshine Mob. All of this would add a level of skill to use it to its greatest effect for advanced players while still having a niche use for casual players.
However, this might only sound good on paper and might be too gimmicky. It will require a lot of playtesting to see if it even would work for each playerbase along with fine tuning the damage each kind of shot does.
I feel another think might be making the cracked shots slower so that it is brain dead in that way. Sure it would make it sure chaser in that way but it makes up for it with a higher reward/skill celling than chaser. But yes alot if testing needs to be done to see if that is good
Just throwing in my two cents, I think one way the studio could have not invalidated game difficulty with the new charms would have been to prevent additional resources gained from charms (Extra health from Heart Ring for instance, or parries from the P turret/Ghost special) from being counted towards the final score. It's not the solution but it could help. Would make these charms a crutch to learn the bosses patterns instead of an easy way to take damage and still be eligible for S rank
Another way could be to create an inverse correlation between current HP and damage output no matter the charm equipped. Give the player a damage bonus if he's at low HP (which helps BEATING bosses since being on your last HP will let you finish the fight much faster) and a corresponding damage penalty if they're above 3 HP, meaning the safer they want to play, the more consistent they need to be. Not only that, the longevity from having more HP offers diminishing returns, meaning you get less chances to finish in time unless you dip back to 3 HP.
That sounds akin to one of the "# of Hits" solutions in the HP Bonus solution section. It's one possible solution since it can be balanced for casual players with some adjustments but is no longer useful for mastery (S Ranks), which is fine but ideally the items should be useful for everyone in some capacity. This may not be entirely possible for Heart Ring (as showcased), but Astral Cookie is different since we can just remove the extra health from her (and then make her a character instead that's easier to balance while adding many more fun options to play with).
Yayyy!!! This video is finally out! I've been looking forward to this video since you teased it in a response to my comment on the fnaf video. (wow that's a mouthful) right away I can't belive there's only 8k views??? hope this blows up soon. best of luck!!
Thank you! This is a different type of video in a sense, so I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't get more views, but it's also doing better than any other video on my channel right now (in terms of views in the first days of release), so that's all I can hope for :)
For a crackshot rework what if you need to hit something with the short range non-homing projectile in order to create the homing projectile.
For a roundabout rework what if you are able to hit yourself with your boomeranging projectiles losing health but in exchange it deals more damage.
For a charge shot rework what if you are unable to parry while charging. So you would have to let go of the shot if you need to parry.
My solution to crackshot is to embrace the weakness. Make it auto aim, but not homing. This way it becomes even less consistent. Oh, and remove the two stage gimmick, simplicity is king!
I just came from your security breach video and wow. The quality of your videos are so astronomically high and your insight on games and game design is practically unparalleled. Thank you for making these videos, it really helps me process game design!
Thank you so much! I'm very happy to hear this. You're awesome :)
Oh I can’t wait to see all this!
I hope you like it! :)
Man i didnt notice how little atrention this abd the hect video got. You deserve way more!
Thank you very much! I think I need to cut down on length, though I'm not yet sure which parts of the comprehensive-ness I need to cut out.
Oh also I had a typo i meant next not hect
@@A_Surpluss_of_Stupidity No problem :)
@DesignFrameCaseStudies just finished your latest video! I left a comment over there with a similar sentiment, but there's definitely an audience for videos this length, or longer!
(It's me, I'm that audience :3)
ooo, new video. i loved your previous one, can't wait for the next one but i know i'll have to.
The first draft of the next video is almost done, so that'll speed it up! :) But yeah, these do take many months to make, esp when it's not my full-time job.
Hell yeah, a new video!
:D
Terrific video!
Thank you!
I love this channel
Thank you so much! :)
The way I would fix Crackshot is that it only cracks upon impact.
Aka, you get a homing shot, after shooting either a destructible or the boss.
Maybe even go so far that the homing can only target destructible and not the boss. Or vice versa.
This would make it basically a more skill dependant Chaser, as you need to be up close to the target, due to Crackshot's short range, but it also doesnt compete with Chaser itsself as the casual weapon, or "shoots down everything" weapon.
It would still make Crackshot a hybrid weapon.
But more along the line of Heartring, where the bonus comes at the cost of higher skill.
Personally I don't mind the overpowered charms (I do get your arguments about them, though), but if they're going to be there as a janky difficulty option I wish they weren't tied to a specific character! It'd be nice to be able to play as Ms. Chalice without making the game way easier for yourself.
Yo it's the guy! With awesome analysis, structuring, and frustration as always!
Thank you! That's kind of you :)
Commenting to help boost :3
Call me basic but I'm excited to see your analysis on both saltshaker and the demon/angel flip bosses. Saltshaker is obvious because he's extremely visually interesting, but the demon/angel boss as well for how it turns the player's ability to turn around against them until they figure out how the manage the boss.
Thank you so much! :)
Haha I wouldn't say that's basic! Saltbaker is a crazy cool one. I was thinking about skipping the angel demon one haha but I'll make sure to include it!
Another absolutely excellent video! Lucky are we to have you produce these videos with such thought and care. It's very refreshing to see a more critical video have such an uplifting and supportive tone towards the devs. Excited to watch your bosses video!
Thank you so much! A couple people haven't liked my "tone" so I'm glad it seems good to you. Voice work is the most difficult thing for me...
Coming back to this video just to say that Shield Pal also gives you increased invincibility frames upon losing it. That's something.
And also that you can use Astral Cookie in the King's Leap even though all of the other charms are disallowed.
Even the King himself says "Your weapons and charms shan't be of use." I get why, but I feel like this furthers the sentiment that Chalice should've been her own playable character.
Actually, one more thing: If Chalice were to be her own playable character, shouldn't both players be able to play as her? I understand the workload that would've been required for such a thing to work thematically, with the solution being creating a Mugman equivalent to Chalice, but I feel like players should have agency over the moveset they get to choose.
Just an interesting hypothetical...
That makes Shield Pal even better haha.
Astral Cookie being usable for The King's Leap is actually amazing bonus evidence! I wish I thought of that!
Yeah, the second player can just play as an alternatively colored Ms. Chalice. Doesn't have to be another Mugman situation.
I mean if I wanted to make Ms. Chalice more balanced I'd leave the maneuverability about the same but reduce her HP to 1 and take away her special grants HP. This probably moves the skill floor way up and kills the difference between the floor and the ceiling, but it would be an interesting "expert" character.
I thought of reducing her HP but that would have had no effect on S rank runs... until they changed how that system worked lol. but then, after that update, she would have been restricted to using shield pal just to get S rank, or they would have had to just change how the scoring works for her specifically
36:28
Reminds me of Zero from mega man X6:
just a straight upgrade to the other player character options
Zero also an air dash and a double jump.
While I agree with all of this, however I will say the ONE trade off for chalice’s parry is that parrying vertically is MUCH harder, see Hocus Pocus or King Dice. It doesn’t sound bad, but can be.
Hey thanks for watching! I appreciate you. That's a great point on vertical parrying, and I should have at least mentioned it in passing (the video is already quite lengthy lol). However, there's only a couple instances where that's really true, and those couple exceptions are caused by super specific mechanics from the base game. I agree though that I don't know what the crap they were thinking with leaving Hocus Pocus as is lol
@@DesignFrameCaseStudies Yeah, I totally agree. The video was great!
@@monsieurliquorice Thank you so much!
As much as I love cuphead to death, I agree that the actual game design could’ve used some work. I think chalice and shield pal is just way too powerful, and heart ring should be replaced with an actual unique charm, which is why I mainly use cuphead when I’m going for high ranks, as it makes it more challenging and fun. But the game is still an absolute treat and is close to perfection, but the shortcomings still need to be highlighted
great video!
Thank you! Thanks for watching :)
Game idea: to make the game challenging to give the feeling of satisfaction, dlc took away some of this satisfaction because it added abilities that give more reward, less risk that will inevitably lower the satisfaction of beating a boss. The dlc abilities are not exclusive to the dlc and can be gotten early on in the game making new players experience worse. The base game had these problems, where less risk high reward weapons like charge shot existed and the fix was to lower the dmg or make the charge shot require more skill for low risk high dmg output.
the pacing of this vid felt kinda slow, i guess the intro felt too long, doing it again id just skip it. You talked about astral cookie so much before even getting into the astral cookie section at 32:52
Thanks for the feedback! Yeah I've determined with my script editor that it seems like I repeat the topic of Ms. Chalice a couple of times unnecessarily. I'll also look into the intro in future videos, but I will say that everything at least serves a purpose, but still perhaps should've been cut. I'll do my best to improve that.
@@DesignFrameCaseStudiesOh wow the quick response. Well if you're still here I should mention that Im at the halfway mark and things feel good now, I guess the intro was the problem
A long time ago I was watching a review of the original Cuphead, and the reviewer brought up the argument of difficulty options and easy modes. He presented the argument in the form of a sort of anecdote. “Anyone can pick up a football. Does that mean they should be able to join the NFL, no questions asked? No, they shouldn’t, and it’s the same idea for difficulty options. Just because you can pick up a controller, you shouldn’t be able to beat the game.” I feel like that argument and this video are both working under the same false conception that everyone who plays video games has the same capacity for skill, and derives fun from the same aspects of video games. That’s not true, there’s a myriad of reasons someone could play video games and not want to be extremely challenged in the way Cuphead challenges players. Age, disability, lack of time, skill floors and skill ceilings aren’t just something that apply to games, everyone has a varying capacity for skill, not everyone can play at S rank level quality, and not everyone wants to either. Extra modes, items, characters, or abilities that make the game easier should ALWAYS be welcome in games, as long as they’re optional, because you control the buttons you press. If the small benefits the DLC items are enough to trivialize the game, then you as the player have the power, the freedom, and the intellect to choose not to use them. People that would prefer an easier time so they can beat the game faster, or have an easier time admiring the beautiful graphics and great music this game has to offer also have the freedom to make use of the DLC items to do that too.
I appreciate the feedback! I cover your concerns in the pinned comment. Additionally, difficulty and content are different insofar as difficulty must be either an informed or automated decision based on physical capabilities, whereas content, in specifically Cuphead and may differ depending on the game, must be balanced against each other to provide player options, choice, and a healthy approach to agency. The items shouldn't be the difficulty slider in this case. Simple Mode almost provides an easier difficulty but falters in several ways that ends up only complementing Regular Mode, although I admit I only conveyed the purpose of Simple Mode in Cuphead and not what it should've been outside of saying it shouldn't have excluded the last phases, so that's my bad. I didn't go into detail because the video assumes a singular difficulty demographic that matches Studio MDHR's intent, although that intent can be criticized. I had someone else write extensively about difficulty that helped me out in this regard, which has been partially summarized in the pinned comment. Another note: I recognize not everyone wants to achieve mastery/S Ranks and I address that many times in the video as "casual" players who "beat" the boss rather than "master" the boss which are the two ways to play the game.
I just added some of my response to the pinned FAQ comment, in case you read it and recognize the words haha. Thank you for keeping me accountable though, it's good to think about and clarify.
I stand by the idea that Crackshot is the worst thing to happen to Cuphead. It has its merit in fights with too much stuff onscreen like expert Saltbaker’s first phase. But it’s such a no skill, overpowered weapon that I now see so many new players who get Crackshot as soon as possible to beat every base game boss (on regular).
Exactly! I used to struggle with Expert but it became trivial for me after the new Ms. Chalice, Shield Pal, Crackshot.
Add video chapters please
There aren't any yet but there are in-video chapters!
You won me with a 2 and a half hour long video about game design, then you loved me with a Bible verse.
How could I not subscribe?
❤
I agree with everything you said, but also all of this is optional. If you don't like it, just don't use the easy options
That's a common notion that just isn't true. That notion stems from the concept of difficulty, but this video is not about difficulty so it's invalid, and talks on difficulty are a lot more complex than simply "don't use it" since that's only one factor to consider. But again, this isn't about difficulty so it's not something we have to consider. I also mention it in the pinned comment.
@@DesignFrameCaseStudies oh sorry I didn't read that, my bad. Also I'm biased since I suck at the game
@@preposteroussongs5572 No problem! I mention difficulty more in the pinned comment as well, but I will say that there is merit to talking about difficulty and how that would look like in Cuphead, but I instead went with Studio MDHR's intent of one difficulty level so that I can keep the video more focused. I'm hoping to have a separate video on the topic 'cause there's a lot to talk about.
So from what i hear of it so far, it seems like the creators kind of fell into the same pitfalls that other indie games tend to do. Things like resource allocation, scope, demographic, competency, testing and design philosophy are things one should always consider in game development, and it's surprising how much they got right seeing how they are apparently new to the whole game development thing, but they fail in other ways that make cuphead kind of iffy for me.
One important thing you typically learn when making a game is that you never design your passion project first, the first thing you should make is something you still like but keep ambitions low and use it as a learning experience. Undertale was that game for toby fox, he made that game and learned from it so his passion project deltarune could be made, and you can see the amazing quality increase between undertale and deltarune, that quality shift wouldn't have happened if he started right out the gate with deltarune.
There's a lot more i could say but i feel like no one would read an essay comment already, let alone one that has multiple paragraphs lol, so i'll leave it at that
I couldn't have said it better!
Although I didnt want to hear criticism about one of my favs I cant help but agree 😅. Ms.Chalice is great and was clearly designed with the dlc levels in mind but in main game she makes it much easier too same way with crackshot. I personally dont like twist up but I dont play with it that often but the fact that the dlc makes the game easier makes me want to replay with only orignal stuff and cuphead to get used to him again. I beat it before when it first came out, I know I can do it again :)
Thank you for keeping an open mind! We can all make great games even better :)
And here I was, thinking that Security Breach would be your final video.
Love your videos, dude! Can't wait for the inevitable SC: Ruin one. Hopefully it doesn't take you 1 year to release lol.
(Oh and also, I reccomend to shorten your channel name to just "Design Frame". 2 words are a lot more memorable than 6. )
These take me many months to make since it isn't my full-time job, unfortunately. But I'll try my best to release the next ones sooner :) Thank you for the support!
And yeah, I think I'll go ahead and shorten the name.
There's a critical flaw with this video, and that's the fact that it focuses entirely on extrinsic reward as a perceived goal of the gameplay experience. You're approaching this with the flawed assumption that the only reason to engage with this game is to "get the S-rank". That's not true, though. Cuphead is also, on top of that, a masterpiece of audiovisual design - surely some players might want to play it solely because it's a joy to watch in motion. As a fluid action shooter it's also intrinsically rewarding in that simply engaging with its mechanics can be a fun experience - the fact that you acknowledge how fun Ms. Chalice is to play should be enough to draw attention to this.
If a "broken" item is a blast to use, is it truly a failure? I would argue no, because the true ultimate goal of a gameplay-focused game is to be fun. Not to incentivize some sort of player hierarchy based on ranking. The flex is secondary. This is the critical point that separates bad power creep (or metagaming) from good: It's not a problem if the most powerful options are also in line with how you're supposed to be playing the game for maximum mechanical engagement or fun anyway.
Thus, Ms. Chalice is not bad design - she's different and she's fun, and that is inherently self-justifying in a game that's all about fun gameplay. Likewise, Heart Ring isn't bad design, because it incentivizes playing the game the way it's meant to be played - it teaches even less-skilled players to pursue parries, and also enables them to have the same relative quality of experience as people who are capable of no-hit runs. The only item here that seems like it might genuinely be poorly designed is Crackshot because it invalidates a whole intended mechanic (weapon switching for situational use) instead of simply rewarding an intended mechanic more than before (parrying for Heart Ring). Then again, is it actually more powerful than less convenient options? I didn't get a clear picture of whether, say, its DPS outweighs the other choices or relying on the mindless auto attack makes it too easy to S-rank time. If the answer to both is no, it's arguable that you're giving up power for convenience.
Lastly, it's patently untrue that players will always, inevitably go for the "best option". Many will - the "meta slave" mindset is a difficult issue to reckon with - but that's more so an effect of hypercompetitive, culturally encouraged mindsets than an intrinsic part of the game itself. I think devs shouldn't really be expected to shoulder all the burden of dealing with the problem of players optimizing the fun out of their game, when so much of that comes entirely from players bringing the baggage of their preexisting biases to the game. It's important to design against it, certainly, but being overly restrictive as a response cuts down on fun in turn.
I think Heart Ring is, in its own way, kind of a solution to "optimizing the fun out": If the most efficient and rewarding way to play is also the way the game is designed to be played, you thus "trick" players into engaging fully with the mechanics rather than resorting to boring, cheesy tactics. Rewarding players more for parrying just makes people who would otherwise not even try (because they're not good at it, for instance, or because they hyperfocus on just doing damage faster) want to parry... And isn't that getting people to play the "right" way and maximize their fun and dynamic engagement? How is that bad?
Edit: You also didn't account for something: Who are healing items for? I think you're missing the point to an extent, because the thing is, people who can consistently stay close to projectiles without getting hit don't need healing. The healing is only worthwhile at all for people who can't play perfectly to begin with. So your proposed changes don't really add anything, they subtract. If using the healing items punishes you anyway, they're not really for anyone.
S-Ranking isn't the only goal. There's a distinction between beating and mastering, and the game should support both or shouldn't have it at all. Playing just to watch it in motion is not a game that Studio MDHR wanted to develop and that's okay because it's not a game to watch but be challenged by, nor do I go into detail on difficulty 'cause it isn't relevant for this video other than to establish their design intent before moving on to the video's purpose (though I do recognize that I could've established this better; you've seen that great difficulty comment that explains it).
Something can be fun but not be healthy for a game, which can also affect fun. Games can support power creep like MtG but for very specific reasons that don't apply to Cuphead. Within Cuphead's confined scope, there's really no reason to have blatant optimal items instead of options. It doesn't only affect competitive players, because it even affects the simple mindset of "Why would I use anything else here if this thing helps me the most?" As a general rule, you should expect players to use the content that is given to them.
The way you describe Heart Ring's purpose in engaging more with the parry system doesn't justify the steep reward but also if it takes a charm to fix the parrying engagement then there's something more fundamentally wrong, and I show this with the Supers. Parries are incentivized because they remove projectiles and provide Supers faster, so if Supers are worthwhile, then casual players will want to engage with it. Instead, Heart Ring is a bandage in the other extreme direction. Heart Ring's reward inherently requires less mastery or engagement of the parrying system because there's less time engaging with the bosses and a much higher reward for it. You could instead argue that Astral Cookie enables players to have the same relative quality of experience with parrying, but game design is about how to incorporate the fun in a way that a game supports. Ms. Chalice may be fun, but she affects past content and mastery, which is not something that can be justified in this context. Even if we could justify it, there are several solutions that keep her parrying intact and maintain the fun without breaking the game, so I don't understand why you'd want to take the cheaper easy way out here.
TL;DR Sorry if this is too long, I just have a lot of thoughts about this. I understand if it's too much for a detailed response. In fact, I've had to split it into two parts, check the replies for part 2.
I found myself agreeing with a lot of what was being said here, but still being deeply upset with the video despite this, because the tone of voice is extremely disproportionate to the actual level of design failure on offer here. You seem a lot angrier in a good portion of this video than you were for most of the Security Breach video, even though Security Breach is fundamentally broken and barely even works, when Cuphead is just poorly balanced, which is much less of a sin. I understand the necessity of accentuating the negatives when making a video like this, but how it's actually done here is just too much. 2:30:08 in particular is a great example, that's simply far too much weight being put behind the point, even if the point in question is entirely correct.
Now, with that out of the way, I'd like to provide my own suggestions, just to show my sincere interest and appreciation for the video's well-chosen topic, even if I found the delivery to be too strong.
1: A lot of the complaints about the power level of the new charms, while totally accurate and completely justified, seem to ignore the fact that *there were already charms like this in the base game.*
- Because extra health was worthless for high ranks until the DLC patch, there was zero reason to use the two health charms for anything other than Pacifist Ranks in the run-and-guns.
- Because there is no boss with difficult enough parries to warrant it, there is almost no reason to use P. Sugar. Its best use-case is against projectiles that fall from above like Root Pack Onion's tears, but there is no boss that ONLY has parriables like these. You can just get the 3 parries for the S-Rank from easier parry targets like Potato's worms.
- Because its numbers are drastically undertuned, there's no good reason to use Whetstone, because it's got the same (well, actually slightly harder) activation requirement as Spread, but with a worse damage output, so you'd rather just use Spread with one of the other charms. Its only real benefit is the ability to parry off enemies, but that just isn't enough to make it good.
- Because Supers don't meaningfully help speed up the fight as you helpfully demonstrated at 1:06:35, there's no good reason to use Coffee unless you're (somehow????) struggling to deal enough damage to build the 3 cards you MUST use for the S-Rank (although this one would easily be fixed by just making Supers actually worth using).
- This leaves us with Smoke Bomb, the only good one. People gravitate to Smoke Bomb not because it's the most versatile, but because it's the ONLY versatile (and the visual clarity downside is one of those negligible ones like you complain about with Heart Ring. And you're right to! it's a problem! But it's ALSO a problem with Smoke Bomb).
The only real exception is that Coffee is better in the plane levels, because the bomb Super is both invincibility and damage and thus is actually worth using (making Coffee actually useful) and the Smoke Bomb's effect is worse in the plane level because of its different dash functionality. There was only one really worthwhile charm for any given level, and which charm it was depended solely on if it was a plane level or not. This is the same level of consolidation as you complain about with Heart Ring, and while you're completely right that Heart Ring is certainly worse about it, this issue was already the case in the base game, which you don't seem to really acknowledge.
2: When discussing the pros and cons of the health grading systems, there's one very notable thing you didn't touch on that I think is an entirely relevant point to the discussion (although maybe you were going to get to it in the boss analysis video?), and that's the King Dice fight. The King Dice fight has an interesting dymanic where a random miniboss in each section will give you an extra heart just for attempting them. This is actually clever design, because by making this random, it results in a system that encourages the player to try out the other minibosses even if they find the actual fight to be harder. If you can master that miniboss, you can keep the extra heart for King Dice, but you have to master the miniboss the game chose, not just the one you're most comfortable with. If you have an easy time with the poker chips, but the extra heart is on the drinks, there's incentive to try fighting the drinks instead.
However, this incentive only exists if the extra health actually matters, while the base game's hit-based system ensures that it can't. I think the new patch's health-based system is better for the health of the game, because it actually allows for *more* worthwhile decision-making even at mastery-level play. Naturally, this requires fixing the DLC charms to not so thoroughly tip the balance in their favour, but that's the charms' fault, not the health ranking's. Smoke Bomb already exists to drastically reduce the actual skill required in order to master a fight, I don't see why the extra health charms can't be an alternate method to reach that same conclusion. There's a lot of attacks, like King Dice's Rabbit's projectile ring, that simply don't exist if you've equipped Smoke Bomb. You just ignore how the attack actually wants you to dodge it and press the dash button to skip past it. As far as I'm concerned, if using that still counts as mastery, then allowing the player to take a hit should count too if they choose those charms as their avenue of attack.
3: You're completely right about the description clarity issue. I genuinely didn't know Heart Ring cut off your super gain from parries until this video. There's a lot of footage I've seen of people with Heart Ring equipped not getting super meter that they thought was a bug because the game simply doesn't tell you it does that.
4: As for actual balancing suggestions, let's rapid-fire the base game real quick, because there's some clear errors on that front which have to be corrected in order for my suggestions for the DLC weapons to make sense.
- I think the two Heart charms are completely fine as long as extra health is allowed to be used up while still getting an S-Rank. You may think they need more serious penalties, but I'm trying to bring everything up to actually be worthwhile alternatives to Smoke Bomb, because I think that charm's power level is completely fine. With that goal in mind, the two Heart charms really don't need more incentive to not use them when Smoke Bomb is also there.
- Like I said, Coffee would be completely fine if Supers were just actually meaningfully DPS positive. The damage-based Supers need damage buffs, and that's how Coffee gets buffed. No direct changes. Also no changes to the plane's bomb super, that one doesn't need the help.
- P. Sugar instead grants a pink auto-parry aura. This aura is automatically used up when you would otherwise take damage from a pink projectile, *even if you're on the ground* (or in a plane). However, afterwards, you have to recharge it by getting a real parry. Adding the ability to parry even on the ground is the only thing I could think of to make P. Sugar worth using while keeping on theme, but JUST adding that would absolutely be too much, so I added the parry recharge requirement to rein it in.
- Whetstone is a perfectly good idea, it's just far too weak to be worth using. I'm increasing the damage from 16 to 30. Yes, that is almost double. No, I don't think that's too much, because Whetstone is super slow to use, super dangerous because you have to be close to the boss, and would STILL be slower than just continuing to shoot the boss with Spread. I think this is approximately what it needs for the damage to be enough to not be too huge a downside compared to just shooting, and become a reasonable alternative where parrying the boss for extra mobility is an actually worthwhile option.
- Peashooter, Spread, Chaser, and even Lobber are basically perfect. No notes. Lobber is certainly stronger than Peashooter, but there are so many phases - or even entire bosses - where its arc is a complete non-starter that it remains situational even with its stronger output.
- Your Roundabout range reduction is a really good choice and I totally agree with it. No notes.
- Charge doesn't need to be removed, just brought in line. And I think there's a great way to accomplish this: Just make it take longer to charge. This decreases its DPS overall, as well as makes it more skill-based, because we're keeping the part where the charge fizzles if you take damage or dash before it's charged. I don't remember if parries also fizzle the charge, but if they don't, we're adding that too. In order for Charge to be more consistent than Chaser, you have to be able to consistently dodge attacks off without dashing or parrying too often. That's a skill-based solution, and I think it's supposed to be the idea, but right now it just charges too quickly for there to be a meaningful trade-off.
Continued in replies.
5: As for the DLC, from least to most complex:
- Converge is perfect. No notes. It has sufficient benefits and drawbacks.
- I actually think Twist-Up needs to be buffed a little bit. Not too much, just increase the damage. Because of the tornado-shaped projectile spread, it's actually quite tricky to hit a boss with the full output, and even if you do get them with everything, it's a bit weaker than Lobber, despite clearly being similar in intention. I think the tornado spread is thematically perfect for its design, but it makes it inherently harder to use than Lobber, so it should deal a bit more damage to compensate. This should essentially balance them out in terms of practical gameplay, because you're missing with at least some of the spread most of the time anyway.
- I actually quite like Crackshot's jack-of-all-trades design framework. The problem is that it isn't just that, it's the MASTER-of-all-trades. I say cut the fire rate a good chunk, so that it's actually dealing less damage than Peashooter with the straight shot, and less damage than Chaser with the crack shot. You can still consolidate the two roles and effectively have 3 shots, but you have to decide that the consolidation is actually a worthwhile trade-off for a lower damage output. I do still like the idea of focusing on the EX though, so I think we'll do a little something with that as well. The P. Turret's bullets remain unchanged, but the P. Turret itself is smaller and deals less damage when parried (and fizzles with only as much damage as a single turret bullet if the boss crashes into it). However, it grows after each shot, dealing more damage each time. It matches its current damage output after 2 turret shots, and deals even more after 3, or especially 4. This adds more skill factor, as you need to try and parry it at a specific time in order to get its full potential (or just fire off another EX to instantly send it, but that costs meter instead of recovering it, so there's still trade-off).
- I actually think I've got an interesting solution for Heart Ring. My suggestion is that it gives you extra HP for every 2 *UNIQUE* parries you get. For example, in the Root Pack fight, you don't get HP for parrying 2 worms, you can only get HP if you parry a worm AND an onion tear, and once you get that HP, you can't get a second one unless you parry a total of four unique objects. This has no hard cap, but that also means parrying provides absolutely no super meter at all (so there's still an actual reason to run the base game heart charms, because remember that we're buffing the Supers' damage so they're actually beneficial). This provides an actual skill ceiling requirement, renders the charm situational, and keeps it interesting all in one. Because if you think about it, some bosses don't even give you enough unique parriables to get more than 1 HP out of it (and Goopy in particular wouldn't let you get any HP at all). And even for the bosses that do give you plenty of parry variety (most notably the final bosses, King Dice, The Devil, and Saltbaker), you often aren't actually using all of it, because some of those attacks are difficult enough to parry that it's safer to just not try, and get your 3 S-Rank-required parries on easier attacks.
- Chalice gets her own section.
6: Ms. Chalice is a tricky fix. I don't want to go too big, I'd like the fix to be fairly simple to code and animate, so my suggestion still keeps her as the Cookie charm rather than a separate character. I'd admittedly prefer if she was just a separate character, but that's just too much work to be expected for a balance discussion, so we're keeping the current Cookie system. She's still clearly too strong though, so:
- Get rid of that 4th HP. I don't know why it's there, you're completely right that it's just stupid and shouldn't be there.
- Keep the double-jump. It'll still be nerfed, but only as part of the dash-parry nerf.
- Instead of completely revoking the dodge roll, just rework it a little bit. Instead, it's a COMBAT DAMAGE roll. You can use it to pass through enemies and you hurt them on the way through instead of the other way around, like a hybrid of Smoke Dash and Whetstone (now THIS one deals 16 damage. It doesn't get the extra, it doesn't need it). However, this comes with two catches. It only deals damage to the first thing it hits (so if you run into a second one you're out of luck), and it HAS to deal damage, otherwise it just doesn't work and you take the hit (from projectiles, invulnerable enemies like the ducks from the funhouse run-&-gun, etc.).
- The dash-parry certainly needs to be brought back a bit, and I think I've figured out how. A successful parry does not recharge your dash, AND you can't double-jump after a parry, even if you hadn't used it yet. There is one issue with this, which is that Chalice can't deal with King Dice's final phase like this, so there's one last thing. The reason why you can't double-jump after a dash-parry is because you go back to the regular parries Cuphead has. Now, that last part is a little iffy and I'm not quite sure about it, but the only alternative I can see (without just keeping the dash parry too strong) is granting a special exemption to King Dice's cards, and that's just not intuitive at all.
- Shield Pal's gotta go. There's no salvaging it. This one will not be easy to animate but I don't see any other way around it. Instead, let's focus on an aspect of the design that seems rather subdued: *It's a shield, right?* Make the super a shield. When you use the super, it summons a directional shield in front of Ms. Chalice that aims in the direction she's firing and blocks projectiles (it also does damage to enemies that run into it, but only as much as a cracked shot to crowd-control in the same way. Bosses can just waltz on through uninterrupted and touch you, *but not if you're rolling! ooh! wow! cohesive design!).* There's a specific number of projectiles it can block before breaking, but the shield is actually so big that you will unintentionally block projectiles that weren't even going to hit you. I'm imagining 10 blocks before it breaks, but that's a theoretical number, I can't pinpoint a good value without more testing. But I think this would be a good way to provide a longer-term alternative to brief invincibility that doesn't completely overshadow and outclass it.
Wow, thanks for taking the time to write this out, that's impressive. I can't leave something like this hanging! :)
1. I agree here. I may not have gone much into the base game charms since the DLC charms in relation to the base charms was the focus, but also I was doing so with the assumption that some of these base charms were viable. Not treating them as such complicates it, but I definitely should've at least mentioned their unbalance in that regard, so that's my bad. I didn't mean to misrepresent them. I didn't really think about them much in terms of balance against each other but rather against the DLC (and also Transparency), so I missed it. Thanks for detailing it out.
2. Dang, King Dice is actually the perfect example of what I talk about regarding player expectations and ranking systems. If the boss fights were longer than they were, then a hitless performance for a perfect score would no longer be expected from the player. King Dice is a pretty good example of this because it's a longer fight that switches between completely unrelated mechanics, so it provides more leeway (at least in terms of health, not the ranking system pre-patch). But yeah, in the solutions' HP Bonus section, I come to the conclusion that "remaining health" (the new system) would most likely be the best option and healthiest for the game, so I agree there. Regarding Smoke Bomb, that's a good point, but also health is still the most powerful resource, and while Smoke Bomb helps you retain health, it's still a tool rather than directly health. It's certainly the most powerful tool though compared to the others, because you're right that it'd be much better if the base game charms were better balanced. The result should be that each charm is a viable tool to avoid damage and position to deal damage. Health also helps in this regard but it allows for mistakes (and thus less skill), whereas if you fail a tool that requires skill to utilize then that mistake costs you the entire fight (no S Rank) plus it's harder to use than having a simpler moveset / less to worry about (i.e., health charm).
4. These seem fair. I think the Heart charms might still need a nerf, esp with the new HP Bonus system, because the damage reduction isn't noticeable compared to the health gained. But it might not matter 'cause Smoke Bomb is the most interesting charm anyway, but that's more of a problem with uninteresting charm design in the first place. But, of course, if Supers mattered, I'm sure Coffee or P. Sugar might be fun. And yeah, I'm sure there's a way to balance Charge by making it a strict weapon. I like your idea and how you compared the consistency to Chaser. Good work!
5.
-I only briefly mentioned Converge and Twist-Up, but I think Twist-Up is mostly redundant because, against high-up bosses, it's no different from shooting at an angle with a different weapon since both of them require the exact same precise positioning (even though theoretically Twist-Up should be best against high-up bosses lol), plus it can miss some of its shots despite being precise.
-I'd be hesitant to try any further changes to Crackshot, 'cause despite my long dissection of trying to make the homing work as a separate weapon, I just don't think it's healthy for the game. Even the jack-of-all-trades style essentially ends up removing the two-weapon system, and I think it should be a design goal to retain that. That's why I add in the P. Turret and New Weapon ideas, to attempt to show how to use design principles with Cuphead's tight limitations to potentially make something worthwhile that doesn't break anything.
-That's also an interesting Heart Ring solution. I think it's viable, with the caveat that some of the base game bosses' parriable objects are unfinished (Grim Matchstick is the most egregious one), but that should've been fixed anyway a long time ago. In my solution, gold objects would need to be added, so both solutions have caveats and that's unavoidable and reasonable.
6. When I offer suggestions and such, I sometimes mention the workload and which solutions would be easier than others (like for Ms. Chalice, Solution #1 DLC Isolation, at the cost of being a bandage over the actual problem), but I also mention that it has to be done right or not at all in the first place, when the game was designed. I don't outright remove options because that's boring in a post-release setting, but also it's important to recognize how something should've been designed from the outset. So that's why I'll stand by Solution #4 (Ms. Chalice as a Character). Your dodge roll idea is interesting though, and might even be a way to balance Smoke Bomb, but it'd probably overcomplicate it. I don't think the dash-parry change would be a problem for King Dice since she still gains height after a successful parry, like Cuphead does. I also like the Shield Pal idea. I think that could really be fleshed out rather than a straight HP buff.
Oh, also, sorry for seeming like the tone was angry. I've also heard "enthusiastic" and think that's in-line with the intention in delivery. Voice work is stupidly hard and I don't know what to do with it but I'll try.
@@DesignFrameCaseStudies Thanks for the response! Like I said, I agreed with almost everything said in the video, and I agree with everything you said in your replies, too. It really was just a tone thing. And unfortunately, the line between heartfelt passion and genuine anger is quite a tightrope, so it can be somewhat difficult to walk it, I do sympathise with that.
Although honestly, that intention does explain why it's so much more prevalent here than in the Security Breach video, because this is a good game you just desperately wish was a bit better, and that was such a letdown there was almost nothing to even get excited over.
Dang, yeah, I'll do my best to change it up next video. Thanks for letting me know! That's honestly a great analysis of what must have happened.
I don't mind then including this stuff as an 'easy mode' of sorts, and i get then wanting to make it more accessible, but i won't lie it is a bit backwards how broken all the new stuff is. The actual bosses of the dlc are fantastically challenging, but then they went and gave you basically infinite health to do it.
Using items in this way to lessen difficulty or provide accessibility isn't the right approach to difficulty in this case. All it really does is reduce player choice and agency. But I agree that the amount of health they provide is insane lol
@@DesignFrameCaseStudies I think that the item ideas are ok but not well thought out. Miss chalice is fine but they should have made s ranks harder to obtain by using her, such as maybe needing more parries or health to have by the end. Her extra health super is just bad design in general though.
I like how the heart ring provides incentive to parry but they should have done something else than more health, like maybe a brief speed or damage buff when using it after each parry.
And crackshot should do less damage.
@@noname-jt6kl Heart Ring seems like it might incentivize parrying but it's just a bandage for the Supers not being worth engaging with, plus getting the parries for Heart Ring is easy anyway.
Even if Crackshot does less, it undermines the weapon swap system. Both parts of the weapon has issues though.
SLOOM REMOVEL enjoyed this video! "i liked it" - SLOOM REMOVEL
Thanks, I think?
I've been exciting for a new video from you ever since your FNAF video. Happy I stuck around!
Thank you for sticking around! I hope I won't disappoint! More to come :)
as far as i was aware, Charge was hypernerfed to not even be the highest dps anymore, wasn't it?
Yeah I think Charge was nerfed. But I still think it's too high due to its other benefits, and also it's still the highest DPS potential in general. And it's also weird that its OP-ness wasn't realized before people complained about it haha
I wonder if that is because everybody used Charge by the end, therefore everybody has the consensus that as time went on you used Charge. It was just an unspoken rule that unless you really needed other stuff, or were trying, let’s say, a whetstone challenge, you would use Charge.
@@iantaakalla8180 Yeah, I think the consequence of Charge being so high-damage (and also not losing damage from moving, which is a massive benefit) basically made Charge the de facto weapon in the community. When the DLC released, people instead recognized that Crackshot was way too good. Players often have an accurate _feeling_ of something but can't put their finger on the details, so hopefully I've done it justice to explain why and how.
Also, I see in my notifications that you left a comment on the other Cuphead DLC video but either you or RUclips's system deleted it so I can't respond to it. Just letting you know in case you didn't realize.
As someone who has never played cuphead and has no idea what astral cookie is or does, it is very confusing to watch. So, I understand Astral cookie is something ms calace has, but is it a attack, or her movement, or something else?
I address that in the Ms. Chalice section, but I also understand how that'd be confusing in the beginning! Astral Cookie is a charm that you can equip which is how you switch to the Ms. Chalice character, who has a different moveset. She also can equip the same weapons as Cuphead.
ahh, thank you. So when you talk about that you lose the charm, it is because is used to equip astral cookie. That is why it felt like you used astral cookie and Ms calace synonymously!
Can you make a video tearing apart Garten of BanBan?
That'd be a fun one, esp since I think their intentions are to cash in rather than improve based on what I've seen and what they've said. But I'm not sure what I can add to the BanBan conversation at the moment. I can look into it for future videos.
@@DesignFrameCaseStudies Also the devs are more than just greedy bastards they also made a game that glorifies school shootings.
Parrying with mrs.Chalice was a disaster, sure she can jump higher, but it's less easy to parry as her in the process..
She has more control over her jump, and the parry has a much higher window, is safer, and is more accurate. The only possibility of feeling like it's harder to parry as her is due to initial unfamiliarity, which isn't a valid argument.
Heart ring could make sense, if it doesn't give health over the base 3 HP.
That's better but the problem is the health potential in a game with only three health that's built around a tight health economy. Perhaps not being able to go above the max health can be used in conjunction with limiting the amount of health that can be healed as well, but that might overcomplicate it and wouldn't be worth using in place of Twin Heart.
Ah yes, the completely normal version of Slay the Spire. All is right in the world.
Slay the Spire mods are great lol
Such an underrated channel man. Can’t wait for your Ruin video (if it’s still coming :) )
Thank you so much! I greatly appreciate your support :)
The points, solutions, and visual representations are fantastic. But man, I feel like the video could’ve been like 2/3 as long. Every section feels like it drags on a bit too long by reiterating previous points unnecessarily.
Thank you so much for watching! The thoroughness and perceived repetitiveness in the latest Cuphead videos are something that I'm contending with and am trying to balance and reduce in the next Cuphead High-Noon Hoopla video. Hopefully it'll be a big improvement :)
I feel like your rant on transparency in particular, though it made several good points in regards to game design in general, fails to fully represent the issue with the charms in the base game. Whetstone and Pink Sugar are unusable because Smoke Bomb is so good, not because people will assume they only work on a single parry. For the most part, people will infer some information- in this case, that the game wouldn't make you spend several hard-earned coins AND use up a charm slot for something that will only be effective for the first fifteen seconds of a fight or less.
Their descriptions are unclear, and would definitely benefit from better transparency; the trouble is most people just have smoke bomb by this point.
As for the two HP up items- people definitely value HP over damage when they're trying to learn boss patterns and, from what I've seen, will nearly always purchase and equip at least one of the two, for at least a while. By the same token, Chaser reducing your damage notably is worth the tradeoff of homing shots in most people's minds; I can't recall a single person I've watched play the game who didn't purchase Chaser almost immediately.
Not having the EXACT stats on something isn't inherently going to turn people off of it; it is welcome, to be sure, but not always necessary. And, I'd argue, in a case such as this, may break some of the immersion. Speaking of stats in a clinical manner can force people out of the game world and into real life, as it were.
I'd love to hear a response from you about this! It was a lot of fun voicing my perspective, and your initial take makes me wonder about how we see the gaming world differently. I welcome a discussion!
Thanks for taking the time to voice your concern and perspective :) Yeah I didn't actually go into or really think about the base game's charm balance. You're definitely right that Smoke Bomb is what most people use. The transparency problem is still a problem even if the balance is also wrong though. Players won't use an item due to either imbalance (underpowered) or because something isn't clear and thus isn't worth bothering with. Some players will still buy it, but the fact that some won't for a clarity reason is what defines it as a failure in game design (and, again, this is different from experimentation). In regards to Chaser, that's a weapon I praise (esp in the Consistency section) and think it's one of the core balanced weapons, along with Peashooter, Spread, and Lobber (and now Converge as well). Not showing the damage values on the weapons is fine since the consideration for players should be the playstyles and different ways to approach bosses and situations rather than random stats that don't mean anything to players. Damage values in this case is the designer's concern. This is different from the charms because the charms lack transparency in what they actually do and can be interpreted in multiple ways, which is important in the buying and equipping process.
I got all S Ranks on every boss by using Ms Chalice for most of them, and no, I'm not doing it again
Exactly! :)
@@DesignFrameCaseStudies I know you're currently working on the boss side of the DLC, and I haven't fully finished the one you made, but what do you think of Saltbakers fight, aside from the beautiful animation. I think it's one of the cheapest and most infuriating fights I've ever had to deal with.
@@mr.funnyman9765 I don't think I can point out anything unfair about the fight, but I will say that it's by far the most difficult fight of any boss by a long shot, so that huge spike in difficulty is probably what you're feeling. It also doesn't help that Saltbaker is so much easier with the unbalanced Ms. Chalice + Shield Pal + Crackshot set-up, as I showcase in this video; and the boss should've been three phases instead of four.
A new video ?!? Lets go 🔥
:)
underrated
Thank you so much! :)
5:23 P L A N T B O I
to me i loved the dlc. idk whats bad?
That's what the video is for!
i fell like the video is a bit too long....
Thank you for the feedback! I'm a bit conflicted on the length, but I feel like I only really repeat myself when it's required for a point or if it's the conclusion or result of a point, which happens quite frequently in a topic video like this where I lay out the thesis then go into detail on how things affect or result in that thesis. Half of the video is a multitude of solutions as well. I don't think it's possible to reduce this without leaving holes in the argument or making it too difficult to follow.
@@DesignFrameCaseStudies i fell like 50 or 30 minute would be acceptable.
one would be falling asleep watching this full video thought i appreciate that you listen up to critics and comments i hope it help you with yours next video.
@@the_bane_of_all_anti_furry That wouldn't have any of the solutions which is arguably the most interesting part. Since I commented here though, I have realized that there is some unnecessary repetition in regards to specifically Astral Cookie, so I apologize for that. The rest should be good though. I imagine that's the reason it may feel longer than it is rather than feeling engaging in the first part of the video in certain parts.
Check a game by called ULTRAKILL best FPS I’ve ever played.
That's quite random but yes I've heard of it! I haven't played it yet though.
*Me after sitting through the entire 2 and a half hours of game design**
Just take the like, man, you didn't need to get into THAT much detail
LOL thank you!
I *don't* agree with everything said here, but I do wholeheartedly with the main point of the video: The DLC items are badly designed.
Honestly, it seems like some sort of backpedal from the devs to me, especially when Game Djimmi is also tacked on.
For the most part, the DLC item line-up was simply disappointing to me. I found the only "normal" DLC charm, Heart Ring, to be the worst offender. It's shallow and lacks depth, is nothing interesting like Whetstone (which I actually like a lot with its probably unintended high skill floor and high skill ceiling), and is basically just Triplet Heart, which is redundant.
And of course, Chalice not being an actual new playable character was definitely disappointing, but maybe that would've been for the worse...
I have a hunch that she was originally intended to be one, but I can't know for sure...
I do think the speedrun strats that Chalice brings to Run 'n Guns is cool, so I'll give her that.
I was hoping for some new weapons (and more than three at that) that could actually compare to the base game's best, and Twist-up does that a very little bit, with its powerful EX, so it's not that significant, but I still find that weapon to be very fun to use and master nevertheless.
On that subject, Twist-up's not that bad in general. Its vertical length can become great horizontal length if aiming up, and can be notably useful for parts like Chef Saltbaker's First phase. But yeah, considering that most people seem to consider it to be one of the worst weapons in the game, its design is pretty failed in that regard.
Certain things of note I tried to structure:
*The Scoreboard:*
Ignoring the first version of the game, how you're saying the HP Bonus worked before 1.3.3 is incorrect. Since 1.1, the HP Bonus lowered upon going below 3 HP, and lowered for any
subsequent hits after that. It wasn't based on remaining health, but you could still use the heart charms to get the highest grade. It seems they changed it in 1.3.3 because of player confusion, but they only made it way too easy. Guess this previous method is the middle ground? Heart Ring would still be overpowered, of course.
Your "No Hits Taken" idea would mess with the game's grade calculation.
When it comes to the ranking overall, maybe they should've added S+ and P+ grades that directly require more out of you or something.
I do think you should be able to get both a P and A+ rank on a Run 'n Gun, considering how different the two ranks are (including forcing you to recollect the coins for an A+), but that's a bit unrelated.
*Weapon Ideas:*
Yeah, Crackshot's homing mechanic would have to go, but maybe it could split into a burst of multiple projectiles instead, which I think would be more befitting of the name.
Anyways, a weapon idea of mine would be a poison one, putting enemies under a status effect that deals damage over time upon hit.
This could make for good synergy and be a useful weapon in its own right.
It could also have an EX that's a mine or some sort of other trap that creates a noxious cloud upon denotation.
Your weapon idea in comparison is just too finnicky, and I also don't believe you would have to remove/change any of the other weapons to make a new one work.
Ranger/Exploder is a bit interesting, but, like you, I don't think it would fit the game's design, but I don't think it would be so overpowered, with keeping your distance being that simple. It depends on the damage and the time it takes for the projectiles to increase in damage and size.
I've tried using the form it exists in in-game, and it wasn't very powerful. More of a hassle, really.
*Ms. Chalice:*
There are two other things to consider when it comes to Chalice being badly designed.
One is being forced to acquire her and a Super Art from one of the mausoleums.
This is very minor in the grand scheme of things, but this is now the only thing stopping you from having a completed save file with only peashooter (excluding mausoleums), and I think the ability to have a "non-tainted" challenge run save file matters, at least a little bit.
The other is King Dice. King Dice himself and Hopus Pocus are very vertical-parry-centric, and this is a big problem for her parry dash.
They were aware of this, for as pink hearts appear above King Dice's cards (which make it way easier, mind you), but this is a sloppy fix. The same cannot be said for Hopus.
Hopus can be beaten under normal circumstances using Chalice, but it's unreasonably hard and shows how unaccounted for it was.
You can safely survive Hopus by dodge rolling behind him and continuing to dodge roll to avoid his skull attack, but that's pretty iffy...
That's just two parts of one boss, but I think it shows how they didn't put enough thought into designing Chalice.
If you ask me, I feel like the parry dash was just a natural consequence of adding the double jump.
If Chalice had normal parrying, it would interfere with the design of her double jump.
MDHR's statements about Chalice are very baffling lmao
Thanks for watching and for taking the time to write this extensive comment!
Ah, okay, I actually wasn't aware that they changed HP Bonus twice from 1.0 to 1.1 to 1.3.3. Thanks for letting me know. I'm not sure how I didn't find that out from research. Thankfully though that doesn't change anything in the video.
The UI changes would make HP Bonus clearer but yeah the ranking system would need adjusted to compensate, which is fine. Ranking systems can always be adjusted if it means the UI is clear and accurate. Either that, or allow the UI to display a number higher than 3, or just don't include health items at all and focus on items that can compete with Smoke Bomb.
Yeah, Run 'n' Guns should definitely have the P Rank be a separate bonus stamp on top of the normal A+ Rank, since it's basically a secret bonus challenge. Good call.
I don't think poison would work, since it sounds like it'd be too similar to Charge in terms of consistency. Unless the bullet damage is still continuous like Peashooter, but then it's redundant with Peashooter since it'd have to deal the same amount of damage. If the intention is to shoot poison then weapon swap continuously, I don't like that since weapon swapping is best when in a situation that a boss or level places you in rather than being a trait of the weapon itself.
My weapon ideas might not work in practice, but they could work as advanced weapons with clear visuals to keep them intuitive. They would need playtesting though. But I'd also be fine with only having a few weapons in the game and scrapping the rest.
Removing/reworking weapons isn't dependent on adding new ones. That has to happen no matter what. Weapons that break the balance simply cannot be in a game like Cuphead.
Is Ms. Chalice mandatory in a base game run? I'm pretty sure none of the mausoleums are required to reach the next Isles. For the DLC, does the boatman not show up in Isles 2 or 3 without at least one mausoleum? I would test it myself but that'd require a fresh file. I guess taking any boatman would give you Ms. Chalice anyway, so there's no way around it. Either way though, if Ms. Chalice was a character instead of a charm, then this perception of not being a Peashooter-only run would also be fixed lol.
The King Dice thing is understandable, since it's the only boss that they had to fix for Ms. Chalice and it works well. Hopus, though, I know what you're talking about. Hitting that vertical parry is very tight and obviously not fixed for Ms. Chalice. I had the same feeling that they forgot about that mini-boss. Good catch!
@@DesignFrameCaseStudies The poison thing, it's subjective. I wouldn't mind a weapon more focused on the technical application of it itself, less relying on the specific situations the game puts you in (this mindset is basically just coming from me doing speedruns pertaining to the game...).
Of course, it wouldn't and shouldn't have to take it to any sort of extreme.
Maybe the projectiles could leave behind an area of effect that deals damage sort of like my EX idea. That seems more versatile.
Really, this "poison" weapon idea is just the best one I could think of for when it comes to "basic weapon concepts" Cuphead hasn't already done.
Personally, I'm not against the idea of new weapons to balance out the dominance of the old ones, and if Crackshot were ever trying to do that, it doesn't do a good job at it.
The problem with the peashooter-only save file thing is to get to the DLC Isle you have to beat a mausoleum, get a Super from that, use Boatman who is spawned by beating at least one mausoleum to travel to the DLC Isle, in which Astral Cookie is given to you. To play the DLC, you have to have at least three items.
Just thought being able to beat all of the bosses and such with only peashooter in your inventory was neat.
OMG OMG OMG OMG THE NEW VIDEO IS UP!!!!!!!
Very good video and I enjoyed and appreciated how thorough you were, but it definitely felt at times like you repeated the same points a bit too much. I'm not saying "you should cut it to 20-30 minutes!" as I can enjoy hours long content perfectly fine, but it definitely felt like it was dragging at places. For example you keep repeating how "astral cookie/ms. chalice" is unbalanced/makes game too easy/is the superior version and at some point I just kept thinking "Ok, I got it. I understood it the first time you explained it. No need to keep repeating it". Overall video was good, but it definitely felt like you could make it a bit more concise and to the point in some places. No need to constantly repeat the things you already talked about.
Thank you very much! Yeah, that's something that slipped through and it shouldn't happen again in future videos. Thanks for the feedback :)
I love how good of detail you go in in this video, and also that you're still checking comments, like dang you're committed, and that's awesome, good job :). Also, the detail you go into in this video is extraordinary, and you do give good points. I mean, i don't really agree with you, but hay, as long as you give evidence and valid points, then your opinion has definitely earned my respect. I do have several key flaws with it though, and I sincerely mean no offense. But I think saying the astral cookie and heart ring are overpowered is a bit of an exagerration. Yes, Ms. Chalice does break some of the bosses, but that is largely due to the fact that those bosses weren't built with Ms. Chalice in mind. And, also, if they were to lock her to the dlc exclucively, then that would cause its own cretique of "why can't we use her all the time?" Plus, she is generally better than cuphead and mugman that much is true, but she dose have a couple of caviots like that her single jump is worse, her dash parry doesn't work against some bosses like grim or hopus pocus. Her biggest flaw is that she can't equip any charms, like the divine relic, which is REALLY good in plane levels. In fact, i would say that Ms. Chalice has more competition in that regurd, and yes i know that there are WAY fewer levels that are plane levels, but i think it is still worth bringing up. Also, the heart ring I wouldn't say is overpowered, since since it means that you won't get any supers on your first third and sixth parry. And saying that those charms take some of the satisfaction away of getting S rank, is really only a cretique to those who want to really challenge themselves. The next flaw I have is saying that the roundabout and charge make other weapons useless. Roundabout has the flaw have having a worse fire rate than other weapons, and its EX is hard to use. Charge is powerful, but has no rapid fire. Some weapons are better than others, but almost every weapon with maybe the exception of twist-up, does have its own exploitable strength In fact, my response to these small flaws is just, let the player play how they want to play. If you want challenge, then just don't play the things you think are overpowered. I get some weapons and charms are better than others, but I don't think the aspect should be ENTIRELY judged by that. Heck, i think having many options for use is actually good for a game, it makes it more accessable. Yes a developer should definitely expect balance, but saying "OP" is kind of overstating things a bit to much. Plus, cuphead is not a competitive game, so i believe that having some options be better is at least a little more forgiving, but that's besides the point. I wouldn't say that the things in cuphead are a difficulty slider, its just some of them are more fit for certain objectives than others. From what i can tell, this video sort of seems like more of a "way you SHOULD play cuphead" video. I again am not saying its bad, but like, if that's the way someone wants to play the game who's to stop them. Who says ya can't play the game in a way other than chronological order, if the devs deliberately put the option to skip to isle 4 who says that when you use these weapons you won't want to use anything else, if people like the weapon that much, then they should have the freedom to use it, and same with charms. They don't remove accessability, since that's ASSUMING ALL players are going to use them and nothing else. How is getting more things to use removing options? I just feel you're kinda both generalizing and overstating things in the video. Not saying your wrong to look at a game this way, or that your opinion is bad. I just think another approach is better suited since after i watched this video, i felt that both objectiveness and subjectiveness were massively disproportionate to each other, because i do feel there was a lot more speculation and opinion than facts and evidence.
Thank you very much for the kind words! I'll try to address as much as I can.
I list out the Astral Cookie and Heart Ring benefits, and directly compare Chalice to Cuphead. It's certainly not an exaggeration, esp when simple changes are exponential in a simple game built around only a couple moving parts at once like Cuphead. You really don't have to go far to see random people mentioning how much easier the game was with Chalice, Crackshot, etc., but I instead go into detail on the why and how. As far as the bosses not being built with Chalice in mind, Maja (Studio MDHR) said otherwise in an interview, that they had to make sure she worked in the base game as well. It really just comes down to how she's an upgrade in every sense and attribute.
Locking her to the DLC was one potential solution, but not the one I ultimately suggested at the end. But I'd still argue that's a legitimate solution. People would only consider that a critique because she's currently playable in the base game. I mention that in the video and said that's why locking wouldn't be a valid post-release option. If she wasn't playable on release, though, then people would simply **wish** for the feature rather than view it as a critique.
Chalice caveats:
- single jump is better for two benefits, because it provides easier access to higher accuracy, which also makes it easier to hit the ground faster to regain control. I also show this in the video. Cuphead has variable jumping as well, but it's relatively more difficult to pull off and less consistent. Less control in general.
- dash parry is a strange one to mention, because it's better all around, and cannot be represented by one exception that Studio MDHR failed to account for. Grim Matchstick is also strange to mention 'cause parrying is easier for him with Chalice, at least from what I remember from testing. I agree on Hopus Pocus.
Chalice not being able to equip charms isn't a flaw. She already has a bunch of built-in benefits. You have to remember that she's a CHARM with a ton more effects than any other charm, not a "character," which is strange to think about but I already heavily criticized Studio MDHR for that dumb decision haha. Her not having a charm slot only affects the player's desire for more variety or options within her playstyle, which my solution at the end fixes.
I don't mention plane levels in the video. It's fair to bring it up, but it doesn't affect the rest of the video, so I decided not to go into it.
The Heart Ring downsides (not gaining super meter on parries) is something addressed in the video. I go into every aspect of Heart Ring so there'd be no holes in the argument. This isn't me being short with you, it's just I can't address everything here in detail, that's what the video is for.
Cuphead is a mastery-based game due to the ranking system, so yes, it's for those who want to engage with Cuphead as a mastery-based game. That doesn't diminish the critiques. I also differentiate between casual and mastery players in the video.
The slower projectile speed is fair to bring up for Roundabout. However, it only slightly affects Roundabout if the boss moves around a lot. It might be better to switch to Peashooter if the movement is excessive; however, you can still just shoot Roundabout straight forward and hit the target regardless of rate of fire. Roundabout is just a whole lot more versatile and consistent than Peashooter. Also, Charge's rate of fire isn't a downside. Charge's low rate of fire is actually a benefit for it, because it allows dodging without missing out on DPS, which is the greatest benefit to have for a weapon. That's also mentioned in the video.
I believe I mention EX moves not having a noticeable enough impact to matter in general. EX moves aren't something that can be used to justify the primary fire.
"Just let the player play how they want to play" is a common fallacy. I address that in the FAQ. Nothing here affects accessibility. Accessibility is something else entirely, and not covered in this video. You then say that some items are more fit for certain objectives than others, and yes, that is also part of balancing. Having some things be better or worse in certain situations is part of balancing and options. I talk about that in the video whenever I talk about weapons, and is why Lobber is mentioned as a good, balanced weapon even though it's situational.
Pretty much everything you're saying at the end is due to not establishing why balance is important in a mastery-based game like Cuphead, which is established in the video. There's really nothing speculative or opinionated about that part. That's just game design, and I explain why in the video. Studio MDHR set out to make a certain type of game, and so this video focuses on that type of game. This is the Cuphead series that is the most rooted in game design and evidence that will most likely ever be on RUclips. I'm not saying that to gloat, it's just what 100s of hours and game design expertise produces, and I think I've put enough blood and sweat into these Cuphead videos to be able to speak the truth of the kind of product that was created here. Is this video without flaws? Certainly not. I'm improving some every video based on viewer feedback and experience. Is it more speculative than based on evidence? That's actually a pretty big insult, if I'm honest, since most of what you've mentioned was also mentioned in a pretty excessive and game design heavy video. I do want to emphasize though that I understand that a heavy video like this isn't always the most clear or easiest to understand at times, so hopefully my future videos help to address this. I don't want to place the blame on you, because that's not entirely fair.
I think to directly confront what I think is going on here, and hopefully this helps: it seems like you're mixing up imbalance with options and playstyles, as if balancing the game will end up removing options and playstyles for the player. Having a game be balanced does not take away playstyles or options. You're not losing anything, but gaining a whole lot. And then accessibility can be handled on top of the balanced game, which Cuphead can certainly be criticized for, but it's a different topic and not related to the stuff you've mentioned. It's a great topic, but just out of scope for this video.
Thanks again for the comment! I want to say that I took no offense, and I do appreciate you taking the time to express your concerns and feedback. Hopefully my reply makes sense and helps to clarify some points.
@@DesignFrameCaseStudies yes it certainly does clarify some points, and I sincerely apologize for that insult. I didn't mean for it to be one, but still, an insult is an insult so I am sorry about that. I do agree that what Maja said is not all that true, I will say chalice is better than Cuphead and mugman overall. I guess you're right that the weapons do function as difficulty sliders of sorts in some cases, and that the heart ring is a REALLY good charm. And I also will admit that the fact that there is common setup that most players use, is something that the developers do have to take some responsibility for. Thank you so much for replying
@@polarpugthecasual9381 No hard feelings, I appreciate you regardless! Sorry if I ever came across abrasive. It was a long reply haha. God bless
@@DesignFrameCaseStudies oh no, you didn't come off as abrasive whatsoever. You were simply responding to me. I mean, you read and listened to my critizism, so I believe it's only fair if I listen to yours. My comment was pretty long to.
It's criminal that this video doesn't have millions of views. The quality and analysis is unparalleled by any other creator on this platform.
Thank you so much! :)
Overall you made a lot of good points in this video, but I found it frustrating how often you repeated the same points over and over. It felt like every 10 minutes or so you reiterated that the DLC charms made every base game charm irrelevant, but I got the point after the first couple of times. In addition, I felt like the script could have been restructured a bit, since it was a while into the video before you ever actually explained what the DLC charms did. As someone who is not intimately familiar with the game, I felt lost whenever you said the DLC content was blatantly overpowered before ever explaining what they did.
Yeah I addressed that in the pinned comment, sorry about that. There were a lot of rewrites so some things slipped through the cracks.
I believe I brought up what a given DLC charm did once I got to their individual section, before I went into detail on that specific charm. But I'm sorry you felt confused. It shouldn't be an issue in future videos, including the upcoming boss ones :)
@@DesignFrameCaseStudies I'm very glad you're taking feedback into account. I heavily enjoyed your previous video on Security Breach, and I'm looking forward to whatever you release in the future!
@@swordsTime Thank you so much! :)
56:56 checkpoint