The comparisons to RE4 are more than surface level, for those who don't know, the creator of GnG who made this game was kinda like a mentor of Shinji Mikami. It makes the complaints about control limitations as some kinda archaic thing by dumb arcade developers funnier cuz the same guys went on to influence the creators of everyone's favorite games. Here's a quote Mikami mentioned : "Mikami found himself compelled to do exactly as Fujiwara bid. In a 2001 interview, he described the general manager as a “scary master for me. Maybe evil master. I’ll put myself at his feet. He has some kind of different atmosphere than other people. He is not big or macho and he doesn’t raise his voice either but he is really scary. His way is not ‘Yes’ or ‘No,’ only YES. I learned a lot from him. One big thing I learned from him is ‘create freedom inside restriction.'”
Exactly Bog, I love this quote ha. Great reference. I always imagine a young Mikami kneeling on the floor and suggesting different gameplay ideas and Fujiwara just silently staring out the window and only giving a single nod when Mikami suggested that Resident Evil should use fixed camera angles lol.
@@TheElectricUnderground Mikami's still waking up in cold sweat after dreaming about Fujiwara Sensei playing RE4 with a subtle unamused expression before shutting the console off without even getting out of the village
I don't think that that in and of itself is a problem. I just consume most movies. I'm not looking for some type of arthouse movie that I intend to critique, for example. I'm just looking for a movie to consume, to just be lazy for a bit. Plenty of people play games to relax, and I don't think that it's our place to tell them that they can't have a fun time with their game after work, unless they intend to put in the work to "git gud," anymore than I want someone telling me that I can't just watch some brain dead popcorn movie to veg out.
@@psionicflash people have opinions, dude. I don't get pissed off because the world at large has grown weary of comic book movies, even as I still enjoy them, being a lifelong comics fan and all.
@@Xoulrath_ Some peoples opinions are ill informed and do harm to the perception of something that is good within it's niche. If you're someone who can only stomach Pokemon and Animal Crossing and more than 2 hazards on screen in a game causes you to hyperventilate, I don't want to hear your takes on Akai Katana or Powered Gear. This is the exact plight Mark has been contesting for years on this channel. People on big platforms badly reviewing action games and putting a stigma on very much still good game design.
"Why do all my chess pawns move so sluggishly, when the queen already demonstrated how a board game piece should control? It's just setting you up for failure, and infuriating instead of challenging. Chess is clearly an outdated game."
its great that CAPCOM always let the original Ghost and Goblins director make the next installment, even though he isnt a CAPCOM employee anymore, kinda shows they know this is something only its original creator can approach or preserve in a specific way.
Yeah it's very cool that they did that and I think is a unique part about japanese developer culture. A western studio would never do something like that ha. From time to time even these large Japanese companies, like Capcom, will be willing to eat some loses or make low rev on projects for the old school devs they still respect.
@@Near_Pluto_There's some really good decent games with tank controls. One of them, Them and Us has both tank controls and third person camera. Mind you, this was done by one dev alone yet Capcom couldn't be arsed to do the same with their remakes...
I am not a big fan of tank controls but a lot games also feel too floaty when playing, I would kinda like a middle ground in terms of feel because tank controls do add a more deliberate approach to something like RE4.
@@Near_Pluto_ Onimusha is one of the best feeling and controlling games ever made in my opinion but I must say that thank controls feel like they got designed specifically to be played with a Dualshock controller in mind, it just feels right on that controller.
The whole "16:9 aspect ratio affecting the shot limit" bit isn't something I ever thought about. That's the kind of critique I love from this channel, another great vid
Aspect ratio affects gameplay immensely, yet players keep demanding aspect ratio changes. If you'd change the width of a hockey field, or a chess board, that would greatly affect how the game is played, but a lot of players (and reviewers) fundamentally misunderstand that a video game is a game.
Whenever I heard people talk about an older games having clunky controls it always confused me, especially with the way a lot of new games are praised when they have "weighty" sluggish movement or games that feel like they're on autopilot and you can't steer against it. I just sort of eventually took it as "clunky" to these people meant the controls held you accountable.
OH that's such a great point pandergast, because this double standard makes no sense. With a 2d limited style control system, it's described as "clunky" because you can't freely control the jump. And yet with a lot of modern games, that have massive gunsway and inertia, which is legitimately clunky, reviewers will call these mechanics "immersive" ha. It's completely backwards.
It reminds me of when Monster Hunter first popped up in the USA, the "clunky" controls were talked about a lot in the press. Overcoming the limitations is literally the gameplay reward in the games. The satisfaction you get from timing attacks properly against the enemies is immense. Classic Tomb Raider and executing traversal properly is the same way.
Funny thing: I beat this game's first loop (Knight difficulty) without using the magic system. Not as like, a self-imposed challenge. But because my dumb ass completely missed that the skill tree was in the game. I legit just didn't notice until a few levels to the end.
Ha this is something I would do honestly. My first few hours with the game I was like, wow this is insanely brutal, but then I researched some of the mechanics like the treasure chests and upgrades and realized, oh this is one of those games that require some homework (which is my least favorite part of it's design). Like your story shows, I think it's upgrade system should have been more directly implemented, rather than sectioned off into extra knowledge that you have to research.
I remember way back when Egoraptor talked about why Castlevanias stiff controls actually mattered and it always stuck out to me. As much as I like Celeste, I can't help but feel that because that game naturally attracted game journalists and video essayists, it ruined game design discourse, especially for 2D platformers. Like if you had a bingo card for video essays that talk about 2D platformer game design, mentioning Celeste or coyote time is almost a guaranteed free space. Obviously Celeste worked well for the type of game it wanted to go for, but because they didn't want to make controlling the character itself difficult or have any randomness, the harder levels start to feel like a rhythm game and a lot of modern platformers are like as well.
Exactly Nimpak. I personally really enjoy games with lots of unrestricted movement in their mechanics. like super metroid. But what's important to understand and is not being understood that having lots of movement options and unrestricted jumps is not good or bad itself, rather it is a type of gameplay style. And so what should be examined more is the relationship between the player's mechanics and the enemy's mechanics and level design. Like in the Maria example, if you don't match the two up well, then the natural difficulty of the game is shifted and things become too easy. So with something like Celeste, the later levels should have stuff like really aggressive enemies that shut down and challenge the player's moveset. Otherwise, like you say, it just becomes a rhythm game by the end.
I'm glad you brought this up; I'm a huge fan of Super Ghouls n' Ghosts, and I view it more as a puzzle platformer than anything else. If you go for the items that only give score, you can easily have infinite continues... but it requires you to go out of your way and take a bit of risk with each item (they are often placed in areas where the wrong jump arc will kill you). I think part of the issue is modern gamers aren't familiar with the concept of learning through repetition and there is a severe lack of focus on mastery as a goal. Back before we could look things up online, it required you to experiment and it was through repetition that you learned their locations. They even included a super move that showed the locations of hidden treasure chests, which was tied to the easiest weapon for new players, the bow (because it helped you deal with Red Arremer Ace, the most difficult enemy type). Now, why would they include all of these design choices, including a committed jump arc? Because it is a DISEMPOWERMENT fantasy akin to horror movies. It isn't just a spooky aesthetic, they made you as the player FEEL weak. Compare this series to something like DOOM, which is an empowerment fantasy. In a game where your every action takes considerable thought, they included continuously spawning enemies because that creates pressure. This pressure can easily cause you to panic and make the wrong choice... the game makes you feel fear. You always feel as if you are about to be overwhelmed due to the shot limit, and whenever you beat a level you feel like you just barely scraped by. You are supposed to die over and over and be hit by some BS that is a knowledge check. If you don't feel like the odds are stacked against you, if it doesn't feel brutal and unfair, it isn't a true horror game. So when making a sequel, I think it is more important to understand WHY certain design choices were made. The best I can tell, it was to provide a disempowerment fantasy. With that said, there is a big difference in game development between something that is objectively unfair and something that FEELS unfair. Most games give the player advantages that only works if they remain hidden (like the first bullet an enemy fires at you will always miss in an FPS, or your hitbox in a SHMUP being ridiculously small, etc.). For the most part, this series doesn't give players these kinds of advantages and it is quite obvious. It is a fine line to walk, but something that is at the heart of what this series is IMO.
What a great comment. Yeah I think the idea behind the design of the series, from what I can tell so far, is to try to create meaningful trade offs for all of the players choices. So if you jump, that has weaknesses. If you stand still and shoot, that has weaknesses. And even if you run and shoot, the shot limit will punish random suppressive fire. So what you have in the end is a game that really rewards memorization and situational awareness of even basic mechanics, which definitely grinds against the way modern games are designed, which don't require the players to think much about their shooting or movement.
Now that I read your comment, I never realized I liked games with a disempowerment fantasy, hahaha. I still haven't bought this game yet (though I'm planning to get it), but some of my favorite games have this type of fantasy, like classic megaman, pikmin, metal slug, cuphead, etrian odyssey, and of course, ghosts n' goblins. Great comment!
Bro, this channel really knows what's up. You're humble, but knowledgeable, analytical and great at putting ill-defined gaming things (such as this "clunky" topic") into words very well. Easy sub, I agree with this whole video. And btw! Mario Kart Double Dash is my favorite "clunky controls" example. I played and 100%'d that game as a kid with no issue, but when I saw online discussion about it, so many people complaining that the controls were clunky and how its the hardest Mario Kart etc., and I just never noticed. Even during game night with the boys, none of us ever brought up a problem with the controls. The steering does have a bit of delay and weight to it, but to me its like... don't you just learn how the game works and adapt to it? Instead of expecting every game to use the same physics and control the exact same way? Well, that's what we've got now because every Mario Kart game since the Wii one has used the exact same control feel. Tales of Vesperia is another one. That game's battle controls get called "clunky" or "outdated" a lot because there's no free-cancel-on-any-frame maneuver, can't i-frame dodge roll out of every bad situation, and enemies can stun lock you to death if you carelessly get yourself surrounded. When really, the game is just more committal, precise, & technical than most Tales of games. It's fine if you don't like that type of design, but when folks act like its objectively bad design and games shouldn't be designed to be a bit more punishing and precise? Definitely doesn't sit well with me. Feels like they're critiquing it for being something that it's not trying to be.
It's funny, in the 2010's I remember phrases like "This game is NES hard" getting thrown around a lot. For a while it seemed like gamers wanted more punishing game design.
Yeah and I think players do want more "difficult" design in their minds. But the kind of difficulty they want is really static where the game doesn't have lost of elements that you need to master and fit together into long sequences (like this game), but instead just bite sized chunks of difficulty that you grind through in little self contained segments. Basically check point grinding where you never lose progress, you just repeat sections over and over till you win.
One of my favorite releases in recent years. The game really kicked my butt, but I persisted and refused to switch from OG rules of 2-hits and you're dead to the more forgiving difficulty setting. Felt very satisfying when you mastered a level. You really had to master positioning and timing. I love a game that puts you in a box, tells you what the rules are, and forces you to play by those rules in order to win. That's what a 'game' is.
great post rodney! Yes I agree completely, I think the best type of game design is the type that is firm with the player and clear with it's rules and punishment. A lot of modern games have rules, but no stomach for punishing the player ha. So you can abuse their mechanics and cruise through will little resistance, which is not rewarding in the long run.
@@TheElectricUnderground Like imagine if you were playing chess with the computer, but then the game randomly gave you the ability to move the rook diagonally or the pawns could suddenly move in straight lines during random turns if it looked like you were losing the game. You might end up victorious, but you would feel cheated because the game let you break its own established rules. That's how I feel sometimes with modern games. They'd rather give the player more empowerment than to allow them to suffer even in least. It might even be based on QA feedback that certain things in the game are "too hard", so the designers attempt to fix it.
Absolutely! Wells is a great example of this too because a lot of the shots he achieved in Citizen Kane were groundbreaking and obviously inspired by the limitations of what he can achieve with old school analog cameras.
Although I kinda agree, absence of limitations made Revenge of the Sith awesome. It's not true with every work of art, but it does have it's advantages.
Doesn't mean that every videogame has to be slow and sluggish. There is a reason why tank controls have a bad reputation, because they feel very sluggish. Doesn't mean they are objectively bad, but it's not for everyone.
Also Orson Welles had a rich inventor as a father and a pianist as mother. He went to private schools. The guy was a rich fart who obviously had no idea what the word "limitations" actually means.
Great review of a game that is great for the reasons you mentioned. Currently playing Locomolito's Cursed Castilla EX which is a homage to this series and also worth checking out for those that like these classics.
@@TheCrewExpendable Oh this stuff is something we both agreed on for ages (Mark's been talking about it at least as far back as the euroshmup vs japanese shmup design vid) and fleshed out through convos/arguments. It's just that now he's gotten better at elegantly putting it into words & has a concrete example 😎
As a game is a challenge created by a person or group of people, when I see the term "artificial difficulty" it always seems to obviously mean "something I don't like". You'll see these same complaints more commonly used against Castlevania, but applies to this series too, of course.
@bulb9970 I feel like I get conflicting info. The most common ones I’ve seen are beginners traps, offscreen enemy killing the player, and having to restart with a game over after losing all of your lives
I think there is a real conversation that needs to be had between what is natural difficulty and what is artificial difficulty, but the two often get lumped together like you say. Because not all difficulty is the same or is healthy. I think this is a trap that most reviewers often fall into, because so many people complain about difficulty in any context, very few people take the time to separate out difficulty that is natural vs unnatural. So like i say in the review, difficulty that stems from limitations placed upon the player and then exploited by the fundamental elements of the game, like the enemies and level design, I think are examples of good natural difficulty. Examples of artificial difficulty, on the other hand, are design elements that make the game harder, but don't connect back to player skill in a meaningful way. Like having wizards pop out of what should be a treasure chest unpredictably. There is no real interaction with the game on the players part here, other than the player needs to route around the concept that armor drops are never guaranteed. But in this case why not just make armor drops more rare or have less of them? if the designer wants you to have to play through sections without an armor drop from time to time, why leave this to chance outside the player's control? Because this leads to just run roulette, where if I don't get the armor drop, it's more efficient to just kill myself and start the checkpoint again in a lot of cases. The wizards in the treasure chests isn't game breaking or anything, but I do think it's an unnecessary distraction from the more rewarding and well made challenges of the game. Same with hiding the treasure chest locations. This does add some extra challenge of having to do homework and figure out where they are, but this is just a separate static challenge that has nothing to do with the main mechanics and skills of the game. There is no risk reward or trade off to learning their locations. You have to learn their locations if you want the best routes. So day 1 you need to watch play throughs and figure out where they are, but for what reason? It's just a bit of homework that once you learn it, it's solved forever so why have that be part of the game's overhead to begin with? I think static disconnected challenges are always worth questioning when it comes to difficulty design. Like if you were a runner and at the end of the race you had to solve a riddle before crossing the finish line.
@@TheElectricUnderground How about adaptive difficulty? Games like Resident Evil 4 do have it. Basically the game adjusts its difficulty based on the player skills: -How much time does the player take to surpass this section of the level on THIS difficulty? -How many enemies can the player defeat at once? -How does the player defeat those enemies? What tactic is it using? -How many hits does the player take? How frequently? Based on these metrics, the game adapts its difficulty to the player by either spawning less enemies/obstacles or make them less aggressive and allows the player to defeat enemies with less hits.
@@daviddefortier5970 Nah, there needs to be a "Game Urinalist" mode that plays itself, then gets a game over on the first boss. -2/10 game unfair, they'll say.
Your discussion at around 9:20 about putting yourself in "unwinnable situations" is something that is so unique about GnG. In GnG, you can mess up and put yourself in a situation where you cannot avoid damage and get a solid second or two to wallow in your misery as the realization dawns on you. I've seen so many people say "it's so unfair, I couldn't avoid damage!!" because they lack some sort of get-out-of-jail dodge technique for those moments, but in reality the damage could have been avoided if you just put yourself in a better position. It's an aspect of GnG that I adore, and is really only present in Classicvania and the older Monster Hunter games. The fact that Resurrection was thrashed by mainstream reviews is such a tragedy, I think a lot of people overlooked this game because of the bad reviews (I did at first too, despite being a fan of the franchise)
Yes this is snowball design. It occurs in shmups as well ha. I think in GNGR it's particularly harsh because of how limited arthur is in all aspects, but it's not a product of bad design or anything like that, but rather a style of difficulty design like old school shmups vs modern bullet hell shmups.
The random chance stuff has always been a series feature since 1985. In the first game it's less pronounced, because you have to shoot the gravestones to summon the owl that turns you into a frog, and there's always been a fireball/penalty weapon - the OG game also makes you use one of the worst weapons to achieve the true ending. That's part of what makes the game. Cheap? Yes. The game's difficult, but it adds that layer on top. Which is why it's infamous. Even seasoned players can still get their game ruined by a weapon swap. That's why it's there. Glad you got around to reviewing it.
Yeah I get that some of these more troll elements of the game are traditions of the series, and I don't think they have to be removed outright necessarily. But I do think the game had an opportunity to improve on these traditions in some small ways, like having some visual clues as to where the treasure chests are or having some kind of mechanic where if the player reacts fast enough, they can change the wizard back into armor or something. Overall I think the game is fantastic, but I do think there were some missed opportunities to take these more troll random elements and fit them into a more natural style of difficulty design ha.
I honestly never thought people were dunking on GnG's jumping. I thought it was extremely clear that this was intentional and was meant to demand more forethought of every player action.
@bulb9970I’m just picturing that designers see the biggest console game and thinking man I can’t understand how Mario moves while jumping, I can implement that the just decided not to change it for the sequels
Man I agree so much... For example I love classic Tomb Raider because it has limitations in it's tank controls... It gives the game a learning curve and it's own gameplay and charm... I think it's a mistake that they added modern controls because it absolutely changes the game (to the worse) because it gives the player more agility which he/she should not have by it's original design
Loved the analysis. Since the first game, the weapons spawn in an order related to the weapon you're currently holding. Same thing with chests. Also; enemies with jars will spawn items according to odd/even numbers of times you have them spawn in the level. Avoid the even spawns. Heh. The art style of this game is based on the original 3 artwork posters, which are themselves based on fairy tale artbooks; the ones where you pull the tabs to make the characters move their limbs, hence the 'wonky' animations. The only thing that bothers me about this game are the instantaneous hitboxes on enemies when they appear in a spot (not the ones entering the screen from left and right). In the old games you could use those animations to position yourself on a better spot before they became 'active'. Thanks for the video.
I think the idea behind the art concept is cool, but I think the actual presentation and quality of the art is a little meh. It's not terrible or anything, but i think some extra detailing and stuff would have gone a long way.
I feel like, instead of the rigid skeletal animations they used, that using more static full-body sprites with smear frames on set animations (or even just adding a blur trail on some moving limbs) would make the art feel less cheap. The actual backgrounds look great imo, and I think the sprites are pretty good too when they aren't moving.
If they'd pushed the quality of presentation as far as a Vanillaware title it would be a hell of a thing. As is there's just a bit too much "looks like Flash animation" cheapness holding it back.
Limitation also makes it easier to tailor level design to an appropriate challenge. If a character has too many options, then overcoming obstacles often becomes a matter of finding the effective vs ineffective options as opposed to executing limited options in a skillful manner.
@@HighLanderPonyYT Movement & attack properties/limitations aren't QoL-related wtf are you smoking. It's like saying that giving Mario the ability to fly is QoL. Also it's always skillful, even dodging crashes in a buggy game can be skillful, just depends on whether you consider it a skill worth testing.
The "too many options" design is what I find frustrating about IGA-vanias. I want them to be challenging and balanced like an arcade game (or at least an arcade-inspired console game), but they're constantly piling up the equivalent of Game Genie codes that the stage and enemy designs never account for, which frequently undermine the combat mechanics. So instead of being combat-centric action games, they've become movement tech heavy maze games for speedrunners / action RPGs with very light combat.
Funnily enough, Goku Makai-Mura Kai, a japanese only update of Ultimate Ghosts 'n Goblins, added the traditional 2 loop Arcade Mode because the original felt too forgiving.
Now this was a vote worth spent. The discussion about limitations was just beautiful and I loved the examples that you chose. And an unexpected highlight of this video were the boghog stream moments, some of them really had me laughing. I'm wondering about Metroid Dread though. I was under the impression that it didn't compromise all that much. Sure it has all the modern game design things added like the parry, but it was also surprisingly difficult (much more difficult than Super Metroid or Zero Mission), and it encourages speedruns exactly like one of the older games. I don't know yet how it holds up to high level gameplay but I am wondering why you seem to hold it in low regard.
Using parry a lot against regular enemies is bad for your time because it's faster and safer to just shoot them. And that the bosses are easier once you get their patterns down is kind of a given.
Super Ghouls n Ghosts on SNES is my favorite game in the series. Capcom designed the stages, environmental hazards, enemies and enemy attacks completely in mind of the double jump ability. Mastering it and knowing when/if to do the 2nd jump at specific heights and if so to either jump again in the same direction, straight up or backwards is critical to playing successfully. I think the stormy sea kraken boss at the end of stage 2 perfectly exemplifies this. And that's not even counting the timing of using gold armor magic attacks and how essential those are at mastering (except the crossbow magic attack which just makes hidden treasure chests appear lol).
Fair points in the intro but that also applies to criticisms about checkpoints and other older mechanics in shmups criticized in this very channel and by many "modern" shmups players. I guess we all are guilty of this in some way or another, most likely in general with just some exceptions when we do like the "outdated" mechanics ;) Great video though! :)
Loved to see GV3 shown I hope you review the Gunvolt games some day Id love to hear your thoughts on their score system and how they demand perfection from the player.
I just beat resurrection the other day, well, the first ending anyway. This was a super challenging game, but it was so much more accessible than the previous games, but I think this game was amazing.
Have you been to the galloping ghost arcade? I just found out about it and would be cool if you could make a video about it! Once I'll travel to usa I'll make sure to go there 😀
You make a lot of great points here. I especially didn't even think of the whole aspect ratio and the way shot limits are affected by it and make missed shots feel extra punishing (which was something that wasn't a problem in the older GNG games with their narrower aspect ratio), so that's something new for me to think about when it comes to game design. Also, yes, you are right that this game definitely did not get much in the way of budget from Capcom. It doesn't even have any kind of physical release on any platform! As for advice for new players, there is no shame in playing the game on lower difficulties at first, just so that you can at least memorize the level and hidden treasure chest layouts. Then you slowly work your way up to Legend so that you no longer have to worry about any of that and just focus on the enemy onslaught. Anyway, what I want to focus on with this post is on the term "artificial difficulty". I think it's about high time videogame discourse gets rid of the term "artificial difficulty". All difficulty in videogames is inherently artificial, because it is designed by people. There is no grass-fed, free-range, USDA-certified game difficulty. There is no difficulty that grows on trees for you to pluck and eat. I am not just being pedantic or playing semantic games here. I am saying this because I think it's harmful to discourse to refer to these things as being natural and artificial, which implies that there is an objectively right way to do things and a wrong way to do it, when really it's more that different genres (and even specific titles within those genres) call for different ways of balancing difficulty. For instance, take weapon randomization. Rogue-lite action platformers like Dead Cells are designed around randomizing the weapons you get over the course of a run. The game has been meticulously balanced over the course of 7 years to ensure that just about every weapon selection is as balanced as possible and can be useful regardless of where in your run the weapon spawns for you. Part of the skill ceiling of Dead Cells (and other rogue-lites like it) is the player's ability to adapt their run to the weapons they get. Does this necessarily mean such weapon randomization is good for Ghost and Goblins Resurrection? No, you are right in this regard. Simply because as far as I know, the game hasn't been balanced in such a way that all weapons are designed to be able to face whatever scenario the game throws at you. Such weapon randomization COULD work if the game's weapon selection was more balanced instead of having specific weapons completely make certain scenarios nigh impossible to overcome. There is nothing wrong with referring to poor implementation of difficulty as "cheap" or "bullshit" difficulty, instead of distinguishing between well-done and poor implementations as "natural" and "artificial".
Good stuff, Mark. I've said it before, but when you look for your next arcade action platformer fix, take a look at Volgarr the Viking. This incorporates the fixed limitations you mention (borrows from GnG) + the level design and arcade structure you also appreciate. It's a fantastic game and, IMO, the best of it's type since the likes of GnG.
A ton of players out there that don't understand when a game is built around the controls. It's the same people that say they want something different, then complain when something different comes along.
Totally agree on character limitations. Castlevania is the perfect example. As for the RNG like the magician or some item drops, that can be fun at first. Randomness introduces wild card that keeps us on the edge of our seat. It becomes a problem during competitive runs though, such as a speed run or wine credit run. This is when RNG is unnecessary because the focus is no longer just having fun or beating the game. There should be an option to turn it off for cases like this. I do like a risk/reward aspect where if there are 4 chests in a level, the magician could be in one of them. So if you open the first two chests, you’ll have consider whether you want to open the latest two, but that’s more for fun. IMO
I started following the channel because of shmup content but this video made me realize why I like your content so much. We have similar opinions about game design and I think that's why I like the topics you emphasize in your reviews. It's the kind of details and how you appreciate every game's intricacies that made me become a fan of the channel's content. You're doing a really good job! thanks for all the rich content here.
What you said about people don't caring about gameplay is so true. Every fucking time a new resident evil comes up there's someone complaining about the story or how capcom doesnt care about the series lore. At this point i think people dont really appreciate/understand video games. As in a video version of a GAME. Like how the first games were inspired by card games, and games you could play in real life only in video format. Its like if videogames dont bow to other more artistically recognised media format they dont deserve any value. We can disagree on modern resident evil combat, but they at least put effort on the gameplay loop of unlocking doors and using item's, the GAME aspects. Everytime someone complain about story in a gameplay focused game i feel like they're complaining about the lack of story in BlackJack or soccer. "wait wait, why do players pursue the ball? Its a orb of energy or something? why blackjack cards have those symbols? It must have been an old fallen kingdom. Why they dont elaborate on such cool lore?
Resident evil fanboys are something else that awful trash village was so trash that capcom just fanservice bait so the fanboy could waste time by talking more about the fan service or story than the actual gameplay This game sucked how can anyone still defen this series is beyond me
@@DOGEELLL c'mon Village is not that bad. Sure it's linear, but the shooting is at least better than RE4 remake, which is a better game overall but I can't stand how they made Leon movement excessively realistic. We know that being hit by a axe hurts but do we really need Leon suffering the attack with no invicibility frames after? Or taking ages to swap a gun? At least Weapon swapping is fast and very arcady in village. Now I have to agree with you on the fanboys. Can't stand the waifu/furry fandom of Capcom in general. A bunch of grown ups lusting for a 3d model is just weird
Funny to see a review for this. I just happened to look Ghost 'n Goblins Resurrection up the other day and noticed that at the moment it’s on sale on everything. Although for some reason it’s not marked down as much on Xbox.
Yeah, the dichotomy between Richter/Maria might be one of the first and best demonstrations of limited control design shown in a single game. Because if you swap to Maria after game overing as Richter, you'll trivialize and skip past SO many things that were previously major hurdles. Its like night and day, impossible to not notice. Maria is straight up an easy mode but nothing about it was number scaling stuff like less enemies on screen, less aggressive enemy AI, or enemies having less HP. Everyone that complains about a clunky or limited control game needs to experience Rondo of Blood. Then we could hear "Richter is awfully designed but Maria was good designed"
I know she was, and she's a fun little addition. But she does demonstrate this concept of I am describing where player and enemy mechanics are connected and if you start arming the player with a bunch of extra options, then you also have to shift the enemy design along with it.
Yeah GNGR is such a bully ha. But beating the game and getting through the levels is very rewarding because of how well made a lot of its mechanics and enemy designs are. There are some sections in the game that do get wearing, like the autoscroller sections, but overall it's extremely repayable and absolutely gives the players plenty of opportunity to develop their skills.
Hey mark, very esoteric question but how often have you encountered the ability to ledge climb in this game? I'm admittedly not very far in (this game is really kicking my ass lol) but I encountered it once on 1-b and was surprised that the game even had a grace feature considering it seems to demand precise and deliberate platforming
Yep spot on. They say the Donkey Kong arcade game is “outdated” because of the limited jump but it’s a stupid argument because the game is clearly designed around it. So many clueless reviewers dismiss good games because “that thing is bad because everyone says so” without putting much thought into it.
The way I see it, the only time a game can be objectively called clunky, is if the game is inconsistent and unreliable for all the wrong reasons. That's why Ghosts n' Goblins really is one of the masters of simple, difficult game design, because it works perfectly, it's up to you to take advantage of it.
To your early points about increased player choice limiting player expression, this is also true even outside issues of artistry and expression. It is a universal truth that in any game with strategic choices, once you pass a game's given threshold of diverse viable options, increasing options further decreases the number of options which are viable. If you take a TCG, the format with the widest card pool is always the one with the fewer number of viable deck types. Fighting games with giant rosters have a smaller percentage of them which are top tier. Chess has tens of thousands of ways to open the game and yet you can count the ones players actually use on your fingers. This isn't a coincidence. When you add options to a pool of choices, you also increase the number of opposing choices that your choice must be better than in order to be good. In a game of 10 characters, you need only be better than a few of those choices in order to be viable. A "top tier" choice in a game of 10 choices beat out maybe 5 or 6 choices. In a game of 100,000 choices, your choice needs to be better than at least 40,000 of them in order to even be considered, and a top tier choice will beat out a staggering number of alternatives. Gamers tend to have an addiction to more complexity, emotionally confusing it for adding depth. If we just walk up to an enemy and hit the X button to kill them, that's "shallow", but if we open up a map, set a waypoint, walk across a mostly barren world, then hit X,Square,Triangle to kill them, that's "engaging". Both players and reviewers tend to view gameplay through this "how complicated is it, even if its artificial" lens and it spills out into reviews of games like GnG. It *feels* like adding restriction to the jump reduces player input, which obviously does in terms of how much button pressing you're doing. But it actually dramatically increases player input in terms of making the choice of when and where to commit to a jump. If you can free float your way to any position mid-air at will, well........ does it really even matter where or when you jump? You can correct to whatever you need on the fly. You don't need to make a choice at all really. Dark Souls understood this. Monster Hunter understood this. Popular gaming is still catching up to the idea.
Great video. I think the point you make is a great one. And more importantly it is somewhat non-obvious. At the surface level, restrictions just feel frustrating, but as you dig into a game, the limitations are actually what make things interesting, deep and strategic. I think that is a big part of why I still generally prefer games made many years ago to modern AAA games. The modern games absolutely have all of the edges sanded off and in the end have to pad out the game with fluff to make up for a lack of depth through the restrictions of the game.
Monster Hunter World increased the combat options players had, lowered animation commitment, made the skill system more flexible and made healing easier and infinite. It made the game a lot more accessible and easy to play which turned out to be a good idea, until it wasn't, and they had to give all of the endgame bosses instakill gimmick attacks or mmo DPS check mechanics in order to pose a threat to the overtuned hunters. Yay!
Play the first one, experience being constantly swarmed by endlessly respawning small enemies that make the playfield completely random and uncontrollable and be thankful for the giant fuck you explosions in World
The DPS checks and Instakill requirements of the endgame fights actually turned me into a better player. I had to design my builds more carefully to take into account the requirements of that fight, instead of just using one of my comfortable ready-to-go builds. They also forced me to play more aggressively and seek out (or create) openings in order to not fall behind, which I didn't do very actively prior to these fights. They did a good job at taking me out of my comfort zone, in other words. At first I didn't not like the radical shift, but I realized why they were implemented after spending more time with them. I now don't view them as a negative towards IB. Having some of these monster fights appear only during specific times, however, was indeed a stupid idea. The guiding lands weapon augments also make these fights easier, but that comes with the caveat of having to grind them extensively, which I definitely did not enjoy. But that is another issue all together.
@@gavi888 I borrowed my friend's vanilla MH Rise and got abit fun on it. The preparation aspect of it seems weird and grapling hook platforming is not my thing, do you think that 3U and 4U are a nicer experience for something that wants the core gameplay of Monster Hunter?
@@soratheorangejuicemascot5809 3U is a great introductory point since it's relatively easy, although it has swimming which is a one time gimmick not many are partial to. Also the best version is on wii u (lol)
Mark, what are your thoughts on Contra: Shattered Soldier (or as I call it, Contra: Shattered S***ter)? I feell like it would have been the perfect Contra game if only the Hit Rate mechanic (which isnt about fire/ shots landed ratio at all and more about 100% completion per stage with the destructive elements) wasn't required for S Ranking the game.
13:57 Can't you see this is a genius mockery of the concept of unbridled player expression? By forcing the player to randomly adjust to the worst weapon for the situation, it changes the answer to the puzzle and denies the player's attempt at leaning back on old tactics while presenting an opportunity for true skill expression.
It’s always insane to me that people will go out of their way to play hard games to then turn around and say “not only is this game hard, but it is unfair and poorly balanced”. When they don’t even have the skillset, experience or community to properly judge them. They’re essentially going out of their way to say fuck you to the super small community of hardcore arcade gamers when they have the entire market making games for them. Also, random but there is a tribute game to Ghosts and Goblins called Cursed Castilla, I really enjoyed it and I thought the pixel art was done really well for what it is.
Is it bad that I feel like Cursed Castilla was the better homage despite not being tied to the IP? I liked that it looked and sounded just like an actual arcade game Capcom might have released as a spiritual successor to GnG.
I greatly appreciate all of the Super Ghouls ‘n Ghosts music in the background! I love that game, it’s probably my favorite Ghosts ‘n Goblins game and it has an amazing soundtrack!
I wish Capcom would just make a bunch of smaller games like this and throw them all together on a disc like some fake Capcom Classics Collection of new games. I do wonder if the leaked Captain Commando and Final Fight remake end up using a similar Spine style animation on drawings. That Vanillaware style of animation. They definitely could’ve had more parts of the character moving. I’m guessing the beat ‘em ups with have a little more money to do stuff.
Sluggish is a bad one, and another review redflag is the phrase "repetitive." It feels like devs try to add gameplay variety in games for the sake of having variety to ensure a higher score from the gaming media. Look at DMC5, it feels like V was added to give the gameplay more variety but he's not fun. I'd rather just play Dante even if it's repetitive. It's always better for games to focus on what they're good at. Bayo 3 would have been better if it focused on Bayo's core moveset instead of introducing many gimmicks.
Honestly, the term “outdated” not “clunky” is the worst term in game criticism. It’s like disrespecting developers by saying “they didn’t know any better” instead of just calling it poor design. It’s bullshit term that somehow is such a commonly used term like old game developers are too primitive to understand good design.
This was my game of the year when it released and I immensely enjoyed playing it. Even if I hit some very frustrating points on the highest difficulty and died a ton before finally beating it, almost all of my deaths felt like something I could improve on.
Great video. Two things though This series rewards your knowledge of it, hence why the chests are hidden. When I had Super GnG, I used the bow to locate the screen the chest was on then started to discover how to make them appear. There’s a logic to it that begins to be apparent. I don’t know how Resurrection does it since I haven’t played it and that’s because of. The visuals of this game look terrible. If they claimed the wanted it to be a storybook look, they should’ve taken inspiration from Rayman. Those are the prettiest 2D games and it would’ve helped this not look like it was a game jam submission.
I really liked this game, although it is not without its flaws. It brilliantly mixes and revisits the first two titles of this legendary saga which made the heyday of arcades and 8 and 16-bit consoles, namely: Ghosts'n Goblins and Ghouls'n Ghosts. The game is obviously difficult and is sometimes unfair by putting us in impossible situations, but I still had a lot of fun. The infinite lives and more numerous checkpoints (banners) make it significantly easier to complete than its ancestor (Ghosts'n Goblins first of the name). In terms of criticism, we will regret, as was already the case in previous opuses, too great an imbalance in the effectiveness of the weapons. Aside from the dagger (by far the best weapon), the spear (correct) and the crossbow which can be very useful against large enemies and flying bosses, the others are more penalizing than anything else , or even unusable against certain bosses. Special mention to the hammer which is particularly unsuitable for the game design of the game. On the other hand, although it is not effective in all circumstances as a weapon, the spiked ball has its usefulness, it allows you to easily unearth the secrets buried in the ground. Furthermore, it quite often happens that the lack of visibility causes us to unintentionally pick up a weapon in the heat of the action when the screen is teeming with enemies. Not to mention those placed in places that cannot be avoided (you mentioned them in this video), I am referring to weapons dropped by enemies, of course. Very interesting review
@@thomasffrench3639 That's right, that's what I thought while playing this Ghosts'n Goblins Resurrection. Regarding the arcade version from 1985, we can also see it like that, but like all games from that era, it was designed to eat coins.
When I hear them complain about clunkyness I want to hear the framecounts, input lag, windups, gravity, momentum, hitboxes, s. Like, give me something actually measurable, otherwise its pretentious review fkery. >:[
Agreed chance. There are clunky games out there (dirge of cerberus), but I think this observation does need to be backed up with more information. Otherwise you get into the insane situation where people are describing Resident Evil 4 as "clunky" which I've heard multiple times, despite it being extremely responsive and reliable control wise.
@@TheElectricUnderground Yeah I think "clunky" needs to be relative to what the game is actually trying to do. Like, having inertia in the movement of a bullet hell would be clunky because movement being unpredictable would remove your focus on patterns.
This is why I feel more fondly about old Monster Hunter. Nowadays it feels like there's too much overlap in the various functions of each weapon type, their identities and their matchups against certain monster feels less distinct since I'll rarely ever think "maybe X would be better suited for Y". Bowguns probably suffered the worst of it since before you had to be much more deliberate because you couldn't fire or reload on the move, recoil and reload speeds were harder to minimize, various gun parameters were more impactful and being too greedy was gonna get you killed. Yeah sure, you could describe the old gunning controls as obtuse but the games were designed around it instead of now where it feels like I'm playing some sort of third person shooter in which you have unimpeded uptime and never genuinely feel at risk. I played through the whole King's Field series a while back too and I loved those games a lot. They're a real testament to how limitations really inform the player's experience and it really drove home why I find it hard to engage with a lot of first person action RPGs beyond the novel exploration phase. I genuinely felt a keen awareness from the developers while playing those games that would be impossible to properly recreate in current market conditions because everyone's "moved on" so the speak and if you dared make a first person action RPG game built around sluggish player controls instead of just being able to mouse look anywhere you want in an attosecond you'd be laughed at.
Upon seeing hunting horn in Rise video, I refuse to use the weapon. About light bowgun, I use it alot in Rise but I still prefer the older ones, it feels abit too safe. I still like it but I do wish I got the old lbg in Rise
Totally love this perspective. I’ve felt slighted by modern game discourse and am happy to see acknowledgement of the pros of limitations. Out of curiosity, what mod do you showcase at 9:24? I’ve never seen this one
I can tell you’re new to Makaimura games. You say the chest are random. This is not the case at all. As long as you don’t get hit, the contents of the chests follow a pattern. (I forget the actual pattern. But it’s something like: weapon, armor, then a magician.) What makes it seem random is that if you get hit. The pattern starts over, or maybe it’s a different pattern. (it’s been a long time since I’ve played, so I don’t actually remember the specifics) That being said. I haven’t played this game yet so maybe they changed it for this game. I doubt it tho. Because this is a mechanic in every other Makaimura game.
The contents of chests follow a general pattern but are semi randomized within that pattern, for example there is a small chance that instead of armor you will get magicians, weapons are ofc randomized as well (within a range + biased in favor of certain ones in some sections). This applies to the 2nd game as well to a lesser extent, I dont remember if it does for the 3rd. Dont be condenscending if you arent sure yourself
Also I 100% disagree with your take saying that the chest should just be visible. I think them being hidden absolutely adds to the game. It adds replayability. The fact I could possibly find a new chest is a big reason why I still come back to Ghouls ’n Ghosts every few years. Even though I’ve played it basically my entire life and cleared it well over 100 times. …no hate at all. I love your channel. Just giving my 2 cents. Keep up the good work Mark!
@@Seama327 Surely there are better ways to add replayability than simply hiding key information no? Like for example a proper scoring system. GnGR makes that extra pointless too since it has a spell that uncovers chests so their location can be learned very easily. Plus all chest locations for the older games are known anyway, so its very limited in how much replayability it can actually offer
@@boghogSTG you’re wrong about the 2nd games chests being random. Go to the speedrun page and go to the guide page for proof. The guide is called “chest chart”
@@boghogSTG you’re wrong on the randomness of the chest. Go to the ghouls ‘n ghost speedrun page and looking the guide section for proof. The guide is called “chest chart”
I think clunky is a fine descriptor, but the words they are looking for is “stiff” or “rigid” for stuff like Castlevania. In my platformers I actually tend to have better game feel with more rigid jump arcs as I generally know where to land and it makes attacks easier to aim as I am not controlling my jump at all. I just prefer that game feel compared to the momentum based physics of Mario World where I tend to slip off platforms all of the time. And as far as limitations being important for difficulty, I think the best example is Kirby and Mario, both great series. Kirby is fun, but you almost have no limitations in where you can go as you float basically anywhere you want, making platforming trivial. But Mario you need momentum to jump to different platforms and if you accidentally slip, you fall. If Mario could be like Kirby with no limitations there would just be no challenge or fun for Mario as jumping on platforms is the whole point of the game where Kirby is a more casual experience where the fun is in doing different copy abilities. The fact is that you need this limitations to for this creativity. Although I have my issues with pixel graphics and chip tunes not because they are pixel art, as I love old pixel art, but because old pixel art was about making characters designed well within the limitations where modern pixel art is focused on capturing those limitations instead of making the game look great. Same thing with chip tunes. There’s exceptions, but I don’t find many of them.
It seems to be Azure Striker GUNVOLT 3! also, a quick tip for finding games from videos like this. take a screenshot and put it in google reverse image search. that’s how how I managed about this one! Happy gaming!
I just started playing Monster Hunter Generations Ultimate after only playing World and Rise previously. It's not that old as a game, but it's relatively old school. And I honestly feel lied to by the reviewers who praised World for "modernizing" or even "fixing" the series. For example: Roll canceling attack recoveries is a big thing in both new and old MH, but in the old game you can't roll cancel backwards so you have to think about positioning much more. Many enemies have attacks that are clearly designed to check your positioning with this limitation in mind and those moves are trivialized in the new games.
You had me at 2 min mark already. 2D platformers have totally lost their identity because every single game needs to be a metroidvania with all the air dashes, double jumps, skill trees, etc. Anything less is outdated game design. It's ridiculous.
I absolutely loved Ghosts n Goblins Resurrection. It was my first game in the series and I thought it was great. Insanely challenging and tough but still fun
YESSSS, thank you for covering this!!! This was Game of the Year 2021 IMHO, if not for so many critics getting it _completely_ wrong! I encourage everyone to please go play this incredible game. Absolutely worth the asking price!
What are your thoughts on Ultimate Ghouls N Ghosts for the PSP? I remember the "clunky" controls were also a point of criticism for that game as well back then. Your sentiment that game design has been dumbed down because of allowing the player more movement freedom has unfortunately been around since about the PS3 era.
I absolutely loved this game. Even more than any of the previous entries. It's gorgeous, and the mastery between checkpoints is so great. Everything is so deliberate, so well tuned and doable, you just have to pin it down and pull it off, keep the pattern in check. Totally agree that expression within lines affords the design some very unique, palatable qualities that give the gameplay depth and individuality. I really enjoy fast, fluid games as well, but I don't need everything to be completely spastic, mashy and weightless in all games. It's like expecting Souls games to be Bayonetta, or chess to be Crossfire.
There are certainly games that feel clunky to play, dodgy hit boxes, overly animated moves etc etc. But a game like GnG or SGnG and RE4 and even games like mario bros. and Donkey kong or one of my favorite underdogs of gaming, Evil Within (I don't care what anyone says, that game is a masterpiece!) all have this methodical gameplay where the amazement of gameplay is in knowing how to play the game
Been meaning to check out this game for a while now. “Clunky” can definitely be a cop out. And limitation is definitely key, RE4 is better without a right analog stick by far.
Have you had a chance to play Outward? Game is the biggest mixed bag in reviews getting shit on for being clunky and outdated but considered the best rpg this decade for others.
Thanks for not just pointing the way the average player gets wrong, but also actually pointing the real BS this game has. Wich could have a separate ingame mode or atleast a mod that fixes the RNG, lingering drops and hidden chests.
Looking at some of the boghog cheap deaths that was just not really well playtested. Especially the fire pillar and unavoidable jump death. They should have really stopped spawning those fires when the pillar is all the way on the right.
The fire pillar is actually my bad, I later learned that you can neutral jump over them even if it doesnt seem like it, its just very tight, especially when youre being chased by another pillar. The platform rng though? Thats just complete bullshit, even the usual crutch of magic s wouldnt help there. Its very, very rare though (both the Beelzebub and Astaroth stuff happened only once in god knows how many hundreds of fights I did with them) so I see why playtests didn't catch it
I wouldn't be surprised if you already knew about this but it's worth stating, Egoraptor made a love letter about the old castlevania and how its limitations were fundamental to it and that it was what made it great. Its a good video. I've never even played a castlevania.
I just found out recently they had a "Kai" version of the PSP game in japan that removed all the collection and backtracking in the original version. It supposedly plays much more like the original games
Interesting video. I agree with the general thesis that constraints/limitations can make for a creative experience, but I have some disagreements. When it comes to aesthetic choice, it simply comes down to preference of theme and overall presentation. Pixel art games can and do work even today because visuals and sound design are a conduit to the overall feel of the game; as long as there is nothing fundamentally broken about them, they can work fantastically to deliver the experience the dev wishes to deliver. If Link to the Past came out today, it would still be an amazing game because the general “limitation” of the art style and audio design does not hinder the overall experience in the timeless dungeon design, overworld exploration, and well-hidden secrets to uncover, which are the core of the gameplay. Contrast that with a game like Goldeneye 64, which would not be nearly as well received because the controls are the crux of the experience for a game like that. I don’t see much of a reason to play a game like Goldeneye 64 aside from nostalgia, precisely because the controls are so clunky and jarring. If I’m playing an FPS, I want smooth movement and aim to express my skill by maneuvering and shooting enemies. I don’t consider having rigid, inefficient controls in a shooter to be anything more than a frustrating obstacle as opposed to a limitation to provoke creativity. I think your comments about too much choice and expression stifling risk/reward were interesting, but this is only evident in the earlier games (which you maybe are aware of and purposely highlighted). Early SF games are renowned for being hilariously imbalanced thanks in large part to pre-internet hotfixes/patches and a predatory business model in which arcade machines existed to eat your quarters. SSF2 Akuma is pickable only as a hidden secret character, and even the toned-down pickable version was STILL banned for competitive play. Contrast that with a more modern game where balance was actually considered, like USFIV, and you can clearly see how having character expression and limitless choice not only did not hurt creativity, but fostered it. If you watch competitive play you can clearly distinguish the differences between Dieminion’s lame, slow-paced Guile, zoning you out with sonic booms, vs Fuson’s in your face, aggressive, punch-you-in-the-face style. With a game like SFV, you can see the differences in how Justin Wong played his Menat, pressing heavy buttons from a distance, vs Sako, who was incredibly execution-heavy. This is all to say that I think having a lot of freedom of options in games is not necessarily a bad thing as long as you have to pick and choose when to use them. In Sekiro, it’s true that you have i-frame dodges and parries, but they aren’t get out of jail free cards. Choosing which option, and when to use it is a critical skill since many attacks are designed to counter a specific choice. Using an attack or choosing to use your Gourd locks you into the animation the same way doing a DP does in fighting games; it’s a commitment. Commit at the wrong time and you’re punished. Also, your point about the aspect ratio was something I hadn’t considered in terms of updating it for modern times while breaking parts of it by not accounting for lingering weapons on the screen… that’s a great point, and something that should be taken into account. Having the wider screen does however alleviate a lot of my gripes with older 4:3 games in that the limited distance you’re able to see tends to result in a bunch of nonsense coming at you from offscreen before you have any idea what happened, or committing to a jump only to have an enemy waiting offscreen on the other side of the jump, who knocks you back into insta-kill spikes, and (in my experience at least) devolve into a game of “just react, and you can get out of this sitatuon” which ironically is something you seem to be railing against. I know this was mostly meant to be in relation to Ghosts n Goblins, but I found the topic interesting and had some tangential thoughts. Very good video! Liked and subbed.
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
The comparisons to RE4 are more than surface level, for those who don't know, the creator of GnG who made this game was kinda like a mentor of Shinji Mikami. It makes the complaints about control limitations as some kinda archaic thing by dumb arcade developers funnier cuz the same guys went on to influence the creators of everyone's favorite games. Here's a quote Mikami mentioned :
"Mikami found himself compelled to do exactly as Fujiwara bid. In a 2001 interview, he described the general manager as a “scary master for me. Maybe evil master. I’ll put myself at his feet. He has some kind of different atmosphere than other people. He is not big or macho and he doesn’t raise his voice either but he is really scary. His way is not ‘Yes’ or ‘No,’ only YES. I learned a lot from him. One big thing I learned from him is ‘create freedom inside restriction.'”
Exactly Bog, I love this quote ha. Great reference. I always imagine a young Mikami kneeling on the floor and suggesting different gameplay ideas and Fujiwara just silently staring out the window and only giving a single nod when Mikami suggested that Resident Evil should use fixed camera angles lol.
@@TheElectricUnderground Mikami's still waking up in cold sweat after dreaming about Fujiwara Sensei playing RE4 with a subtle unamused expression before shutting the console off without even getting out of the village
That's a great quote, thank you for sharing!
Such a great quote and info. Thank you!
“Create freedom inside restriction”
Love the quote
One of the roots of the problem is that many people prefer consuming video games rather than actually playing them
I don't think that that in and of itself is a problem. I just consume most movies. I'm not looking for some type of arthouse movie that I intend to critique, for example. I'm just looking for a movie to consume, to just be lazy for a bit.
Plenty of people play games to relax, and I don't think that it's our place to tell them that they can't have a fun time with their game after work, unless they intend to put in the work to "git gud," anymore than I want someone telling me that I can't just watch some brain dead popcorn movie to veg out.
That would probably be because the consumer mindset is heavily pushed in every areas.
@@Xoulrath_they should just play casual games then instead of going to a game that clearly isn't for them and calling it shit
@@psionicflash people have opinions, dude. I don't get pissed off because the world at large has grown weary of comic book movies, even as I still enjoy them, being a lifelong comics fan and all.
@@Xoulrath_ Some peoples opinions are ill informed and do harm to the perception of something that is good within it's niche. If you're someone who can only stomach Pokemon and Animal Crossing and more than 2 hazards on screen in a game causes you to hyperventilate, I don't want to hear your takes on Akai Katana or Powered Gear.
This is the exact plight Mark has been contesting for years on this channel. People on big platforms badly reviewing action games and putting a stigma on very much still good game design.
"Why do all my chess pawns move so sluggishly, when the queen already demonstrated how a board game piece should control? It's just setting you up for failure, and infuriating instead of challenging. Chess is clearly an outdated game."
its great that CAPCOM always let the original Ghost and Goblins director make the next installment, even though he isnt a CAPCOM employee anymore, kinda shows they know this is something only its original creator can approach or preserve in a specific way.
Yeah it's very cool that they did that and I think is a unique part about japanese developer culture. A western studio would never do something like that ha. From time to time even these large Japanese companies, like Capcom, will be willing to eat some loses or make low rev on projects for the old school devs they still respect.
This reminds me of the tank controls discourse. Which, if you play for five minutes, you can master.
Tank Controls and fixed angles offer so much. I wish devs would play around with them again.
@@Near_Pluto_There's some really good decent games with tank controls. One of them, Them and Us has both tank controls and third person camera. Mind you, this was done by one dev alone yet Capcom couldn't be arsed to do the same with their remakes...
@@Near_Pluto_what about tank controls that control the camera, as that seems way more common?
I am not a big fan of tank controls but a lot games also feel too floaty when playing, I would kinda like a middle ground in terms of feel because tank controls do add a more deliberate approach to something like RE4.
@@Near_Pluto_ Onimusha is one of the best feeling and controlling games ever made in my opinion but I must say that thank controls feel like they got designed specifically to be played with a Dualshock controller in mind, it just feels right on that controller.
The whole "16:9 aspect ratio affecting the shot limit" bit isn't something I ever thought about. That's the kind of critique I love from this channel, another great vid
ColonelSandwich spotted.
Aspect ratio affects gameplay immensely, yet players keep demanding aspect ratio changes.
If you'd change the width of a hockey field, or a chess board, that would greatly affect how the game is played, but a lot of players (and reviewers) fundamentally misunderstand that a video game is a game.
Whenever I heard people talk about an older games having clunky controls it always confused me, especially with the way a lot of new games are praised when they have "weighty" sluggish movement or games that feel like they're on autopilot and you can't steer against it. I just sort of eventually took it as "clunky" to these people meant the controls held you accountable.
OH that's such a great point pandergast, because this double standard makes no sense. With a 2d limited style control system, it's described as "clunky" because you can't freely control the jump. And yet with a lot of modern games, that have massive gunsway and inertia, which is legitimately clunky, reviewers will call these mechanics "immersive" ha. It's completely backwards.
Any game that doesn't give you a "fixes all problems" dodge-roll with i-frames is labeled "clunky" by morons today.
It reminds me of when Monster Hunter first popped up in the USA, the "clunky" controls were talked about a lot in the press. Overcoming the limitations is literally the gameplay reward in the games. The satisfaction you get from timing attacks properly against the enemies is immense. Classic Tomb Raider and executing traversal properly is the same way.
Funny thing: I beat this game's first loop (Knight difficulty) without using the magic system. Not as like, a self-imposed challenge. But because my dumb ass completely missed that the skill tree was in the game. I legit just didn't notice until a few levels to the end.
Ha this is something I would do honestly. My first few hours with the game I was like, wow this is insanely brutal, but then I researched some of the mechanics like the treasure chests and upgrades and realized, oh this is one of those games that require some homework (which is my least favorite part of it's design). Like your story shows, I think it's upgrade system should have been more directly implemented, rather than sectioned off into extra knowledge that you have to research.
I remember way back when Egoraptor talked about why Castlevanias stiff controls actually mattered and it always stuck out to me.
As much as I like Celeste, I can't help but feel that because that game naturally attracted game journalists and video essayists, it ruined game design discourse, especially for 2D platformers.
Like if you had a bingo card for video essays that talk about 2D platformer game design, mentioning Celeste or coyote time is almost a guaranteed free space. Obviously Celeste worked well for the type of game it wanted to go for, but because they didn't want to make controlling the character itself difficult or have any randomness, the harder levels start to feel like a rhythm game and a lot of modern platformers are like as well.
If you think Celeste didn't get difficult you didn't play far enough into it.
Exactly Nimpak. I personally really enjoy games with lots of unrestricted movement in their mechanics. like super metroid. But what's important to understand and is not being understood that having lots of movement options and unrestricted jumps is not good or bad itself, rather it is a type of gameplay style. And so what should be examined more is the relationship between the player's mechanics and the enemy's mechanics and level design. Like in the Maria example, if you don't match the two up well, then the natural difficulty of the game is shifted and things become too easy. So with something like Celeste, the later levels should have stuff like really aggressive enemies that shut down and challenge the player's moveset. Otherwise, like you say, it just becomes a rhythm game by the end.
Also, it's ugly lol.
I'm glad you brought this up; I'm a huge fan of Super Ghouls n' Ghosts, and I view it more as a puzzle platformer than anything else. If you go for the items that only give score, you can easily have infinite continues... but it requires you to go out of your way and take a bit of risk with each item (they are often placed in areas where the wrong jump arc will kill you). I think part of the issue is modern gamers aren't familiar with the concept of learning through repetition and there is a severe lack of focus on mastery as a goal. Back before we could look things up online, it required you to experiment and it was through repetition that you learned their locations. They even included a super move that showed the locations of hidden treasure chests, which was tied to the easiest weapon for new players, the bow (because it helped you deal with Red Arremer Ace, the most difficult enemy type).
Now, why would they include all of these design choices, including a committed jump arc? Because it is a DISEMPOWERMENT fantasy akin to horror movies. It isn't just a spooky aesthetic, they made you as the player FEEL weak. Compare this series to something like DOOM, which is an empowerment fantasy. In a game where your every action takes considerable thought, they included continuously spawning enemies because that creates pressure. This pressure can easily cause you to panic and make the wrong choice... the game makes you feel fear. You always feel as if you are about to be overwhelmed due to the shot limit, and whenever you beat a level you feel like you just barely scraped by. You are supposed to die over and over and be hit by some BS that is a knowledge check. If you don't feel like the odds are stacked against you, if it doesn't feel brutal and unfair, it isn't a true horror game.
So when making a sequel, I think it is more important to understand WHY certain design choices were made. The best I can tell, it was to provide a disempowerment fantasy. With that said, there is a big difference in game development between something that is objectively unfair and something that FEELS unfair. Most games give the player advantages that only works if they remain hidden (like the first bullet an enemy fires at you will always miss in an FPS, or your hitbox in a SHMUP being ridiculously small, etc.). For the most part, this series doesn't give players these kinds of advantages and it is quite obvious. It is a fine line to walk, but something that is at the heart of what this series is IMO.
What a great comment. Yeah I think the idea behind the design of the series, from what I can tell so far, is to try to create meaningful trade offs for all of the players choices. So if you jump, that has weaknesses. If you stand still and shoot, that has weaknesses. And even if you run and shoot, the shot limit will punish random suppressive fire. So what you have in the end is a game that really rewards memorization and situational awareness of even basic mechanics, which definitely grinds against the way modern games are designed, which don't require the players to think much about their shooting or movement.
@@TheElectricUnderground , thanks buddy it was a great video.
Now that I read your comment, I never realized I liked games with a disempowerment fantasy, hahaha. I still haven't bought this game yet (though I'm planning to get it), but some of my favorite games have this type of fantasy, like classic megaman, pikmin, metal slug, cuphead, etrian odyssey, and of course, ghosts n' goblins. Great comment!
Tbf i wouldnt call GNG a real horror game either.
Youre actually quite powerful when compared to the enemies
Bro, this channel really knows what's up. You're humble, but knowledgeable, analytical and great at putting ill-defined gaming things (such as this "clunky" topic") into words very well. Easy sub, I agree with this whole video.
And btw! Mario Kart Double Dash is my favorite "clunky controls" example. I played and 100%'d that game as a kid with no issue, but when I saw online discussion about it, so many people complaining that the controls were clunky and how its the hardest Mario Kart etc., and I just never noticed. Even during game night with the boys, none of us ever brought up a problem with the controls. The steering does have a bit of delay and weight to it, but to me its like... don't you just learn how the game works and adapt to it? Instead of expecting every game to use the same physics and control the exact same way? Well, that's what we've got now because every Mario Kart game since the Wii one has used the exact same control feel.
Tales of Vesperia is another one. That game's battle controls get called "clunky" or "outdated" a lot because there's no free-cancel-on-any-frame maneuver, can't i-frame dodge roll out of every bad situation, and enemies can stun lock you to death if you carelessly get yourself surrounded. When really, the game is just more committal, precise, & technical than most Tales of games. It's fine if you don't like that type of design, but when folks act like its objectively bad design and games shouldn't be designed to be a bit more punishing and precise? Definitely doesn't sit well with me. Feels like they're critiquing it for being something that it's not trying to be.
It's funny, in the 2010's I remember phrases like "This game is NES hard" getting thrown around a lot. For a while it seemed like gamers wanted more punishing game design.
gamers do want more punishing design. game reviewers are rarely gamers, however
@@AcceleratingUniverse it depends on the gamer I guess
Yeah and I think players do want more "difficult" design in their minds. But the kind of difficulty they want is really static where the game doesn't have lost of elements that you need to master and fit together into long sequences (like this game), but instead just bite sized chunks of difficulty that you grind through in little self contained segments. Basically check point grinding where you never lose progress, you just repeat sections over and over till you win.
The "Burrito enemies" 🤣
Hadn't noticed that won't be able to unsee now.
Yeah lol, they look like little burritos ha. Cute little guys.
You gotta watch “avoiding the puddle” playthrough highlights of this game. He called them burritos too
My brother and I have always called them Snausages after the dog treat. They look exactly like them.😂
I honestly don't know what they're supposed to be, if not burritos
One of my favorite releases in recent years. The game really kicked my butt, but I persisted and refused to switch from OG rules of 2-hits and you're dead to the more forgiving difficulty setting. Felt very satisfying when you mastered a level. You really had to master positioning and timing.
I love a game that puts you in a box, tells you what the rules are, and forces you to play by those rules in order to win. That's what a 'game' is.
great post rodney! Yes I agree completely, I think the best type of game design is the type that is firm with the player and clear with it's rules and punishment. A lot of modern games have rules, but no stomach for punishing the player ha. So you can abuse their mechanics and cruise through will little resistance, which is not rewarding in the long run.
@@TheElectricUnderground Like imagine if you were playing chess with the computer, but then the game randomly gave you the ability to move the rook diagonally or the pawns could suddenly move in straight lines during random turns if it looked like you were losing the game. You might end up victorious, but you would feel cheated because the game let you break its own established rules. That's how I feel sometimes with modern games. They'd rather give the player more empowerment than to allow them to suffer even in least. It might even be based on QA feedback that certain things in the game are "too hard", so the designers attempt to fix it.
Obligatory quote from Orson Welles: "The absence of limitation is the enemy of art."
Absolutely! Wells is a great example of this too because a lot of the shots he achieved in Citizen Kane were groundbreaking and obviously inspired by the limitations of what he can achieve with old school analog cameras.
Although I kinda agree, absence of limitations made Revenge of the Sith awesome. It's not true with every work of art, but it does have it's advantages.
Doesn't mean that every videogame has to be slow and sluggish. There is a reason why tank controls have a bad reputation, because they feel very sluggish. Doesn't mean they are objectively bad, but it's not for everyone.
Also Orson Welles had a rich inventor as a father and a pianist as mother. He went to private schools. The guy was a rich fart who obviously had no idea what the word "limitations" actually means.
@@rindenauge3426 Not the own you think it is. Just makes me like him more.
Great review of a game that is great for the reasons you mentioned. Currently playing Locomolito's Cursed Castilla EX which is a homage to this series and also worth checking out for those that like these classics.
A lot of people forget about cursed castilla, ex, which is a fantastic game. buy it physically before it gets crazy expensive
Cursed Castilla is what GnG would be without the random BS. Amazing game!
i gotta admit, getting trolled by weapon drops like the flame magic is pretty hilarious
It's hilarious to watch, terrible to play. Lol
@@HighLanderPonyYT unless you have a sense of humor
I've all the sense of humor... still terrible to play. @@thomasffrench3639
Yeah it is, and I get there is that fun nasty dynamic with that stuff, but I think it is a little much in this game ha.
I've all the sense of humor in the world. YT keeps eating comments. @@thomasffrench3639
Huge day for Mr Boghog
Put on my best suit for this one
Glad to see Mark adopt BogHog-thought
@@TheCrewExpendable Oh this stuff is something we both agreed on for ages (Mark's been talking about it at least as far back as the euroshmup vs japanese shmup design vid) and fleshed out through convos/arguments. It's just that now he's gotten better at elegantly putting it into words & has a concrete example 😎
@@boghogSTGMarkism-Boghogism
@@TheCrewExpendable Shmuppie pinkos
As a game is a challenge created by a person or group of people, when I see the term "artificial difficulty" it always seems to obviously mean "something I don't like". You'll see these same complaints more commonly used against Castlevania, but applies to this series too, of course.
artificial difficulty is barely a term, it's more of a buzzword.
@bulb9970 I feel like I get conflicting info. The most common ones I’ve seen are beginners traps, offscreen enemy killing the player, and having to restart with a game over after losing all of your lives
I think there is a real conversation that needs to be had between what is natural difficulty and what is artificial difficulty, but the two often get lumped together like you say. Because not all difficulty is the same or is healthy. I think this is a trap that most reviewers often fall into, because so many people complain about difficulty in any context, very few people take the time to separate out difficulty that is natural vs unnatural. So like i say in the review, difficulty that stems from limitations placed upon the player and then exploited by the fundamental elements of the game, like the enemies and level design, I think are examples of good natural difficulty. Examples of artificial difficulty, on the other hand, are design elements that make the game harder, but don't connect back to player skill in a meaningful way. Like having wizards pop out of what should be a treasure chest unpredictably. There is no real interaction with the game on the players part here, other than the player needs to route around the concept that armor drops are never guaranteed. But in this case why not just make armor drops more rare or have less of them? if the designer wants you to have to play through sections without an armor drop from time to time, why leave this to chance outside the player's control? Because this leads to just run roulette, where if I don't get the armor drop, it's more efficient to just kill myself and start the checkpoint again in a lot of cases. The wizards in the treasure chests isn't game breaking or anything, but I do think it's an unnecessary distraction from the more rewarding and well made challenges of the game. Same with hiding the treasure chest locations. This does add some extra challenge of having to do homework and figure out where they are, but this is just a separate static challenge that has nothing to do with the main mechanics and skills of the game. There is no risk reward or trade off to learning their locations. You have to learn their locations if you want the best routes. So day 1 you need to watch play throughs and figure out where they are, but for what reason? It's just a bit of homework that once you learn it, it's solved forever so why have that be part of the game's overhead to begin with? I think static disconnected challenges are always worth questioning when it comes to difficulty design. Like if you were a runner and at the end of the race you had to solve a riddle before crossing the finish line.
@@TheElectricUnderground How about adaptive difficulty?
Games like Resident Evil 4 do have it.
Basically the game adjusts its difficulty based on the player skills:
-How much time does the player take to surpass this section of the level on THIS difficulty?
-How many enemies can the player defeat at once?
-How does the player defeat those enemies? What tactic is it using?
-How many hits does the player take? How frequently?
Based on these metrics, the game adapts its difficulty to the player by either spawning less enemies/obstacles or make them less aggressive and allows the player to defeat enemies with less hits.
A fantastic game that deserves way more attention.
I agree! and more respect too. It got some attention, but most of it people being salty about its difficulty ha.
Would be nice if there was a "baby" mode to select.
@@daviddefortier5970 Nah, there needs to be a "Game Urinalist" mode that plays itself, then gets a game over on the first boss. -2/10 game unfair, they'll say.
@@daviddefortier5970 That's called "Page mode" XD
Your discussion at around 9:20 about putting yourself in "unwinnable situations" is something that is so unique about GnG. In GnG, you can mess up and put yourself in a situation where you cannot avoid damage and get a solid second or two to wallow in your misery as the realization dawns on you. I've seen so many people say "it's so unfair, I couldn't avoid damage!!" because they lack some sort of get-out-of-jail dodge technique for those moments, but in reality the damage could have been avoided if you just put yourself in a better position. It's an aspect of GnG that I adore, and is really only present in Classicvania and the older Monster Hunter games. The fact that Resurrection was thrashed by mainstream reviews is such a tragedy, I think a lot of people overlooked this game because of the bad reviews (I did at first too, despite being a fan of the franchise)
Some fan you are. Kapp
Yes this is snowball design. It occurs in shmups as well ha. I think in GNGR it's particularly harsh because of how limited arthur is in all aspects, but it's not a product of bad design or anything like that, but rather a style of difficulty design like old school shmups vs modern bullet hell shmups.
The random chance stuff has always been a series feature since 1985. In the first game it's less pronounced, because you have to shoot the gravestones to summon the owl that turns you into a frog, and there's always been a fireball/penalty weapon - the OG game also makes you use one of the worst weapons to achieve the true ending. That's part of what makes the game. Cheap? Yes. The game's difficult, but it adds that layer on top. Which is why it's infamous. Even seasoned players can still get their game ruined by a weapon swap. That's why it's there.
Glad you got around to reviewing it.
Yeah I get that some of these more troll elements of the game are traditions of the series, and I don't think they have to be removed outright necessarily. But I do think the game had an opportunity to improve on these traditions in some small ways, like having some visual clues as to where the treasure chests are or having some kind of mechanic where if the player reacts fast enough, they can change the wizard back into armor or something. Overall I think the game is fantastic, but I do think there were some missed opportunities to take these more troll random elements and fit them into a more natural style of difficulty design ha.
Anyone else still hoping for that third Maximo game? This game reignited my hope, I know it's not likely to happen but maybe eventually.
This guy right here. Ghosts to Glory was good and Army of Zin was even better.
I honestly never thought people were dunking on GnG's jumping. I thought it was extremely clear that this was intentional and was meant to demand more forethought of every player action.
@bulb9970I’m just picturing that designers see the biggest console game and thinking man I can’t understand how Mario moves while jumping, I can implement that the just decided not to change it for the sequels
@bulb9970 I guess maybe in like 1981 people hadn't yet figured out how to do "smooth" jumps. But by GNG it was very clearly a deliberate choice.
The GameSpot/IGN game "journalist"/blogger sphere has been a disaster for the video game industry lol
It predates the Internet. Nes Magazines gave Action 52 9/10
@@eightcoins4401 Wow. That game is easily a 10/10 if not higher
Not to mention RUclips journalism by people like Act Man and Critical
Yes it has. It's insane how incompetent they are and yet how powerful and influential they are in terms of marketing and sales.
Man I agree so much... For example I love classic Tomb Raider because it has limitations in it's tank controls... It gives the game a learning curve and it's own gameplay and charm... I think it's a mistake that they added modern controls because it absolutely changes the game (to the worse) because it gives the player more agility which he/she should not have by it's original design
Loved the analysis.
Since the first game, the weapons spawn in an order related to the weapon you're currently holding. Same thing with chests.
Also; enemies with jars will spawn items according to odd/even numbers of times you have them spawn in the level. Avoid the even spawns. Heh.
The art style of this game is based on the original 3 artwork posters, which are themselves based on fairy tale artbooks; the ones where you pull the tabs to make the characters move their limbs, hence the 'wonky' animations.
The only thing that bothers me about this game are the instantaneous hitboxes on enemies when they appear in a spot (not the ones entering the screen from left and right). In the old games you could use those animations to position yourself on a better spot before they became 'active'.
Thanks for the video.
The art style of this game is simply phenomenal
I think the idea behind the art concept is cool, but I think the actual presentation and quality of the art is a little meh. It's not terrible or anything, but i think some extra detailing and stuff would have gone a long way.
I feel like, instead of the rigid skeletal animations they used, that using more static full-body sprites with smear frames on set animations (or even just adding a blur trail on some moving limbs) would make the art feel less cheap. The actual backgrounds look great imo, and I think the sprites are pretty good too when they aren't moving.
If they'd pushed the quality of presentation as far as a Vanillaware title it would be a hell of a thing. As is there's just a bit too much "looks like Flash animation" cheapness holding it back.
I think it looks crap like it was made using flash.
The backgrounds look good, South Park character animation rarely does.
Limitation also makes it easier to tailor level design to an appropriate challenge. If a character has too many options, then overcoming obstacles often becomes a matter of finding the effective vs ineffective options as opposed to executing limited options in a skillful manner.
Banging your head against poor QoL isn't always skillful.
@@HighLanderPonyYT Movement & attack properties/limitations aren't QoL-related wtf are you smoking. It's like saying that giving Mario the ability to fly is QoL. Also it's always skillful, even dodging crashes in a buggy game can be skillful, just depends on whether you consider it a skill worth testing.
I never smoked in my life.
The "too many options" design is what I find frustrating about IGA-vanias. I want them to be challenging and balanced like an arcade game (or at least an arcade-inspired console game), but they're constantly piling up the equivalent of Game Genie codes that the stage and enemy designs never account for, which frequently undermine the combat mechanics. So instead of being combat-centric action games, they've become movement tech heavy maze games for speedrunners / action RPGs with very light combat.
@@1000MEGASHOCK It's a problem that almost always comes with introducing RPG elements into action games. They don't really gel well.
Funnily enough, Goku Makai-Mura Kai, a japanese only update of Ultimate Ghosts 'n Goblins, added the traditional 2 loop Arcade Mode because the original felt too forgiving.
Now this was a vote worth spent. The discussion about limitations was just beautiful and I loved the examples that you chose.
And an unexpected highlight of this video were the boghog stream moments, some of them really had me laughing.
I'm wondering about Metroid Dread though. I was under the impression that it didn't compromise all that much. Sure it has all the modern game design things added like the parry, but it was also surprisingly difficult (much more difficult than Super Metroid or Zero Mission), and it encourages speedruns exactly like one of the older games.
I don't know yet how it holds up to high level gameplay but I am wondering why you seem to hold it in low regard.
Game is actually very easy once you get the boss patterns down and parry is op against regular enemies.
Using parry a lot against regular enemies is bad for your time because it's faster and safer to just shoot them. And that the bosses are easier once you get their patterns down is kind of a given.
Super Ghouls n Ghosts on SNES is my favorite game in the series. Capcom designed the stages, environmental hazards, enemies and enemy attacks completely in mind of the double jump ability. Mastering it and knowing when/if to do the 2nd jump at specific heights and if so to either jump again in the same direction, straight up or backwards is critical to playing successfully.
I think the stormy sea kraken boss at the end of stage 2 perfectly exemplifies this. And that's not even counting the timing of using gold armor magic attacks and how essential those are at mastering (except the crossbow magic attack which just makes hidden treasure chests appear lol).
Fair points in the intro but that also applies to criticisms about checkpoints and other older mechanics in shmups criticized in this very channel and by many "modern" shmups players. I guess we all are guilty of this in some way or another, most likely in general with just some exceptions when we do like the "outdated" mechanics ;)
Great video though! :)
Loved to see GV3 shown
I hope you review the Gunvolt games some day Id love to hear your thoughts on their score system and how they demand perfection from the player.
I just beat resurrection the other day, well, the first ending anyway. This was a super challenging game, but it was so much more accessible than the previous games, but I think this game was amazing.
Have you been to the galloping ghost arcade? I just found out about it and would be cool if you could make a video about it!
Once I'll travel to usa I'll make sure to go there 😀
You make a lot of great points here. I especially didn't even think of the whole aspect ratio and the way shot limits are affected by it and make missed shots feel extra punishing (which was something that wasn't a problem in the older GNG games with their narrower aspect ratio), so that's something new for me to think about when it comes to game design. Also, yes, you are right that this game definitely did not get much in the way of budget from Capcom. It doesn't even have any kind of physical release on any platform! As for advice for new players, there is no shame in playing the game on lower difficulties at first, just so that you can at least memorize the level and hidden treasure chest layouts. Then you slowly work your way up to Legend so that you no longer have to worry about any of that and just focus on the enemy onslaught.
Anyway, what I want to focus on with this post is on the term "artificial difficulty". I think it's about high time videogame discourse gets rid of the term "artificial difficulty". All difficulty in videogames is inherently artificial, because it is designed by people. There is no grass-fed, free-range, USDA-certified game difficulty. There is no difficulty that grows on trees for you to pluck and eat. I am not just being pedantic or playing semantic games here. I am saying this because I think it's harmful to discourse to refer to these things as being natural and artificial, which implies that there is an objectively right way to do things and a wrong way to do it, when really it's more that different genres (and even specific titles within those genres) call for different ways of balancing difficulty.
For instance, take weapon randomization. Rogue-lite action platformers like Dead Cells are designed around randomizing the weapons you get over the course of a run. The game has been meticulously balanced over the course of 7 years to ensure that just about every weapon selection is as balanced as possible and can be useful regardless of where in your run the weapon spawns for you. Part of the skill ceiling of Dead Cells (and other rogue-lites like it) is the player's ability to adapt their run to the weapons they get.
Does this necessarily mean such weapon randomization is good for Ghost and Goblins Resurrection? No, you are right in this regard. Simply because as far as I know, the game hasn't been balanced in such a way that all weapons are designed to be able to face whatever scenario the game throws at you. Such weapon randomization COULD work if the game's weapon selection was more balanced instead of having specific weapons completely make certain scenarios nigh impossible to overcome.
There is nothing wrong with referring to poor implementation of difficulty as "cheap" or "bullshit" difficulty, instead of distinguishing between well-done and poor implementations as "natural" and "artificial".
Good stuff, Mark. I've said it before, but when you look for your next arcade action platformer fix, take a look at Volgarr the Viking. This incorporates the fixed limitations you mention (borrows from GnG) + the level design and arcade structure you also appreciate. It's a fantastic game and, IMO, the best of it's type since the likes of GnG.
A ton of players out there that don't understand when a game is built around the controls. It's the same people that say they want something different, then complain when something different comes along.
People wanting to have it both ways, as always.
another absolutely GOATed review, keep it up Mark!
Totally agree on character limitations. Castlevania is the perfect example.
As for the RNG like the magician or some item drops, that can be fun at first. Randomness introduces wild card that keeps us on the edge of our seat.
It becomes a problem during competitive runs though, such as a speed run or wine credit run. This is when RNG is unnecessary because the focus is no longer just having fun or beating the game.
There should be an option to turn it off for cases like this.
I do like a risk/reward aspect where if there are 4 chests in a level, the magician could be in one of them. So if you open the first two chests, you’ll have consider whether you want to open the latest two, but that’s more for fun. IMO
I started following the channel because of shmup content but this video made me realize why I like your content so much. We have similar opinions about game design and I think that's why I like the topics you emphasize in your reviews. It's the kind of details and how you appreciate every game's intricacies that made me become a fan of the channel's content. You're doing a really good job! thanks for all the rich content here.
The game is tough as nails but my main gripe is Arthur's slow movement, which doesn't allow me to get out of the way of much faster enemy characters.
What you said about people don't caring about gameplay is so true. Every fucking time a new resident evil comes up there's someone complaining about the story or how capcom doesnt care about the series lore. At this point i think people dont really appreciate/understand video games. As in a video version of a GAME. Like how the first games were inspired by card games, and games you could play in real life only in video format. Its like if videogames dont bow to other more artistically recognised media format they dont deserve any value. We can disagree on modern resident evil combat, but they at least put effort on the gameplay loop of unlocking doors and using item's, the GAME aspects. Everytime someone complain about story in a gameplay focused game i feel like they're complaining about the lack of story in BlackJack or soccer. "wait wait, why do players pursue the ball? Its a orb of energy or something? why blackjack cards have those symbols? It must have been an old fallen kingdom. Why they dont elaborate on such cool lore?
Resident evil fanboys are something else that awful trash village was so trash that capcom just fanservice bait so the fanboy could waste time by talking more about the fan service or story than the actual gameplay
This game sucked how can anyone still defen this series is beyond me
@@DOGEELLL c'mon Village is not that bad. Sure it's linear, but the shooting is at least better than RE4 remake, which is a better game overall but I can't stand how they made Leon movement excessively realistic. We know that being hit by a axe hurts but do we really need Leon suffering the attack with no invicibility frames after? Or taking ages to swap a gun? At least Weapon swapping is fast and very arcady in village. Now I have to agree with you on the fanboys. Can't stand the waifu/furry fandom of Capcom in general. A bunch of grown ups lusting for a 3d model is just weird
Funny to see a review for this. I just happened to look Ghost 'n Goblins Resurrection up the other day and noticed that at the moment it’s on sale on everything. Although for some reason it’s not marked down as much on Xbox.
Maria was intentionally designed to be an Easy Mode in Rondo Of Blood
Yeah, the dichotomy between Richter/Maria might be one of the first and best demonstrations of limited control design shown in a single game.
Because if you swap to Maria after game overing as Richter, you'll trivialize and skip past SO many things that were previously major hurdles. Its like night and day, impossible to not notice. Maria is straight up an easy mode but nothing about it was number scaling stuff like less enemies on screen, less aggressive enemy AI, or enemies having less HP.
Everyone that complains about a clunky or limited control game needs to experience Rondo of Blood. Then we could hear "Richter is awfully designed but Maria was good designed"
I know she was, and she's a fun little addition. But she does demonstrate this concept of I am describing where player and enemy mechanics are connected and if you start arming the player with a bunch of extra options, then you also have to shift the enemy design along with it.
This game beat my ass but beating this game on nightmare is probably the most difficult gaming feat i've done and it was satisfying.
Yeah GNGR is such a bully ha. But beating the game and getting through the levels is very rewarding because of how well made a lot of its mechanics and enemy designs are. There are some sections in the game that do get wearing, like the autoscroller sections, but overall it's extremely repayable and absolutely gives the players plenty of opportunity to develop their skills.
Hey mark, very esoteric question but how often have you encountered the ability to ledge climb in this game? I'm admittedly not very far in (this game is really kicking my ass lol) but I encountered it once on 1-b and was surprised that the game even had a grace feature considering it seems to demand precise and deliberate platforming
Yep spot on. They say the Donkey Kong arcade game is “outdated” because of the limited jump but it’s a stupid argument because the game is clearly designed around it.
So many clueless reviewers dismiss good games because “that thing is bad because everyone says so” without putting much thought into it.
It's much easier not to think for yourself.
The way I see it, the only time a game can be objectively called clunky, is if the game is inconsistent and unreliable for all the wrong reasons. That's why Ghosts n' Goblins really is one of the masters of simple, difficult game design, because it works perfectly, it's up to you to take advantage of it.
Mainstream videogame reviewers hate hard games like this one because they can't finish them effortless and quickly so they can meet their deadline.
It's crazy how people don't really talk about this game. By far, the best entry of the series.
To your early points about increased player choice limiting player expression, this is also true even outside issues of artistry and expression. It is a universal truth that in any game with strategic choices, once you pass a game's given threshold of diverse viable options, increasing options further decreases the number of options which are viable.
If you take a TCG, the format with the widest card pool is always the one with the fewer number of viable deck types. Fighting games with giant rosters have a smaller percentage of them which are top tier. Chess has tens of thousands of ways to open the game and yet you can count the ones players actually use on your fingers. This isn't a coincidence. When you add options to a pool of choices, you also increase the number of opposing choices that your choice must be better than in order to be good. In a game of 10 characters, you need only be better than a few of those choices in order to be viable. A "top tier" choice in a game of 10 choices beat out maybe 5 or 6 choices. In a game of 100,000 choices, your choice needs to be better than at least 40,000 of them in order to even be considered, and a top tier choice will beat out a staggering number of alternatives.
Gamers tend to have an addiction to more complexity, emotionally confusing it for adding depth. If we just walk up to an enemy and hit the X button to kill them, that's "shallow", but if we open up a map, set a waypoint, walk across a mostly barren world, then hit X,Square,Triangle to kill them, that's "engaging". Both players and reviewers tend to view gameplay through this "how complicated is it, even if its artificial" lens and it spills out into reviews of games like GnG. It *feels* like adding restriction to the jump reduces player input, which obviously does in terms of how much button pressing you're doing. But it actually dramatically increases player input in terms of making the choice of when and where to commit to a jump. If you can free float your way to any position mid-air at will, well........ does it really even matter where or when you jump? You can correct to whatever you need on the fly. You don't need to make a choice at all really.
Dark Souls understood this. Monster Hunter understood this. Popular gaming is still catching up to the idea.
Great video. I think the point you make is a great one. And more importantly it is somewhat non-obvious. At the surface level, restrictions just feel frustrating, but as you dig into a game, the limitations are actually what make things interesting, deep and strategic. I think that is a big part of why I still generally prefer games made many years ago to modern AAA games. The modern games absolutely have all of the edges sanded off and in the end have to pad out the game with fluff to make up for a lack of depth through the restrictions of the game.
Monster Hunter World increased the combat options players had, lowered animation commitment, made the skill system more flexible and made healing easier and infinite.
It made the game a lot more accessible and easy to play which turned out to be a good idea, until it wasn't, and they had to give all of the endgame bosses instakill gimmick attacks or mmo DPS check mechanics in order to pose a threat to the overtuned hunters. Yay!
Play the first one, experience being constantly swarmed by endlessly respawning small enemies that make the playfield completely random and uncontrollable and be thankful for the giant fuck you explosions in World
Or I could just play anything from FU to 4U. I don't understand your argument. The first game was flawed therefore the newest game isn't? Dishonest.
The DPS checks and Instakill requirements of the endgame fights actually turned me into a better player. I had to design my builds more carefully to take into account the requirements of that fight, instead of just using one of my comfortable ready-to-go builds. They also forced me to play more aggressively and seek out (or create) openings in order to not fall behind, which I didn't do very actively prior to these fights. They did a good job at taking me out of my comfort zone, in other words. At first I didn't not like the radical shift, but I realized why they were implemented after spending more time with them. I now don't view them as a negative towards IB. Having some of these monster fights appear only during specific times, however, was indeed a stupid idea.
The guiding lands weapon augments also make these fights easier, but that comes with the caveat of having to grind them extensively, which I definitely did not enjoy. But that is another issue all together.
@@gavi888 I borrowed my friend's vanilla MH Rise and got abit fun on it. The preparation aspect of it seems weird and grapling hook platforming is not my thing, do you think that 3U and 4U are a nicer experience for something that wants the core gameplay of Monster Hunter?
@@soratheorangejuicemascot5809 3U is a great introductory point since it's relatively easy, although it has swimming which is a one time gimmick not many are partial to. Also the best version is on wii u (lol)
Mark, what are your thoughts on Contra: Shattered Soldier (or as I call it, Contra: Shattered S***ter)?
I feell like it would have been the perfect Contra game if only the Hit Rate mechanic (which isnt about fire/ shots landed ratio at all and more about 100% completion per stage with the destructive elements) wasn't required for S Ranking the game.
13:57 Can't you see this is a genius mockery of the concept of unbridled player expression? By forcing the player to randomly adjust to the worst weapon for the situation, it changes the answer to the puzzle and denies the player's attempt at leaning back on old tactics while presenting an opportunity for true skill expression.
It’s always insane to me that people will go out of their way to play hard games to then turn around and say “not only is this game hard, but it is unfair and poorly balanced”. When they don’t even have the skillset, experience or community to properly judge them. They’re essentially going out of their way to say fuck you to the super small community of hardcore arcade gamers when they have the entire market making games for them. Also, random but there is a tribute game to Ghosts and Goblins called Cursed Castilla, I really enjoyed it and I thought the pixel art was done really well for what it is.
Is it bad that I feel like Cursed Castilla was the better homage despite not being tied to the IP? I liked that it looked and sounded just like an actual arcade game Capcom might have released as a spiritual successor to GnG.
I greatly appreciate all of the Super Ghouls ‘n Ghosts music in the background! I love that game, it’s probably my favorite Ghosts ‘n Goblins game and it has an amazing soundtrack!
I wish Capcom would just make a bunch of smaller games like this and throw them all together on a disc like some fake Capcom Classics Collection of new games.
I do wonder if the leaked Captain Commando and Final Fight remake end up using a similar Spine style animation on drawings. That Vanillaware style of animation. They definitely could’ve had more parts of the character moving. I’m guessing the beat ‘em ups with have a little more money to do stuff.
Sluggish is a bad one, and another review redflag is the phrase "repetitive." It feels like devs try to add gameplay variety in games for the sake of having variety to ensure a higher score from the gaming media. Look at DMC5, it feels like V was added to give the gameplay more variety but he's not fun. I'd rather just play Dante even if it's repetitive. It's always better for games to focus on what they're good at. Bayo 3 would have been better if it focused on Bayo's core moveset instead of introducing many gimmicks.
Honestly, the term “outdated” not “clunky” is the worst term in game criticism. It’s like disrespecting developers by saying “they didn’t know any better” instead of just calling it poor design. It’s bullshit term that somehow is such a commonly used term like old game developers are too primitive to understand good design.
This was my game of the year when it released and I immensely enjoyed playing it. Even if I hit some very frustrating points on the highest difficulty and died a ton before finally beating it, almost all of my deaths felt like something I could improve on.
Great video. Two things though
This series rewards your knowledge of it, hence why the chests are hidden. When I had Super GnG, I used the bow to locate the screen the chest was on then started to discover how to make them appear. There’s a logic to it that begins to be apparent. I don’t know how Resurrection does it since I haven’t played it and that’s because of.
The visuals of this game look terrible. If they claimed the wanted it to be a storybook look, they should’ve taken inspiration from Rayman. Those are the prettiest 2D games and it would’ve helped this not look like it was a game jam submission.
I really liked this game, although it is not without its flaws. It brilliantly mixes and revisits the first two titles of this legendary saga which made the heyday of arcades and 8 and 16-bit consoles, namely: Ghosts'n Goblins and Ghouls'n Ghosts. The game is obviously difficult and is sometimes unfair by putting us in impossible situations, but I still had a lot of fun. The infinite lives and more numerous checkpoints (banners) make it significantly easier to complete than its ancestor (Ghosts'n Goblins first of the name). In terms of criticism, we will regret, as was already the case in previous opuses, too great an imbalance in the effectiveness of the weapons. Aside from the dagger (by far the best weapon), the spear (correct) and the crossbow which can be very useful against large enemies and flying bosses, the others are more penalizing than anything else , or even unusable against certain bosses. Special mention to the hammer which is particularly unsuitable for the game design of the game. On the other hand, although it is not effective in all circumstances as a weapon, the spiked ball has its usefulness, it allows you to easily unearth the secrets buried in the ground. Furthermore, it quite often happens that the lack of visibility causes us to unintentionally pick up a weapon in the heat of the action when the screen is teeming with enemies. Not to mention those placed in places that cannot be avoided (you mentioned them in this video), I am referring to weapons dropped by enemies, of course. Very interesting review
Ghosts n Goblins is like the original troll game where it has so many beginners traps that it’s funny
@@thomasffrench3639 That's right, that's what I thought while playing this Ghosts'n Goblins Resurrection. Regarding the arcade version from 1985, we can also see it like that, but like all games from that era, it was designed to eat coins.
When I hear them complain about clunkyness I want to hear the framecounts, input lag, windups, gravity, momentum, hitboxes, s. Like, give me something actually measurable, otherwise its pretentious review fkery. >:[
Agreed chance. There are clunky games out there (dirge of cerberus), but I think this observation does need to be backed up with more information. Otherwise you get into the insane situation where people are describing Resident Evil 4 as "clunky" which I've heard multiple times, despite it being extremely responsive and reliable control wise.
@@TheElectricUnderground Yeah I think "clunky" needs to be relative to what the game is actually trying to do. Like, having inertia in the movement of a bullet hell would be clunky because movement being unpredictable would remove your focus on patterns.
This is why I feel more fondly about old Monster Hunter. Nowadays it feels like there's too much overlap in the various functions of each weapon type, their identities and their matchups against certain monster feels less distinct since I'll rarely ever think "maybe X would be better suited for Y". Bowguns probably suffered the worst of it since before you had to be much more deliberate because you couldn't fire or reload on the move, recoil and reload speeds were harder to minimize, various gun parameters were more impactful and being too greedy was gonna get you killed. Yeah sure, you could describe the old gunning controls as obtuse but the games were designed around it instead of now where it feels like I'm playing some sort of third person shooter in which you have unimpeded uptime and never genuinely feel at risk.
I played through the whole King's Field series a while back too and I loved those games a lot. They're a real testament to how limitations really inform the player's experience and it really drove home why I find it hard to engage with a lot of first person action RPGs beyond the novel exploration phase. I genuinely felt a keen awareness from the developers while playing those games that would be impossible to properly recreate in current market conditions because everyone's "moved on" so the speak and if you dared make a first person action RPG game built around sluggish player controls instead of just being able to mouse look anywhere you want in an attosecond you'd be laughed at.
Upon seeing hunting horn in Rise video, I refuse to use the weapon. About light bowgun, I use it alot in Rise but I still prefer the older ones, it feels abit too safe. I still like it but I do wish I got the old lbg in Rise
fantastic commentary and critique on the "clunky" word usage by reviewers
keep up the great work!!!
2:37 what's this game?
Azure Striker Gunvolt 3.
Totally love this perspective. I’ve felt slighted by modern game discourse and am happy to see acknowledgement of the pros of limitations. Out of curiosity, what mod do you showcase at 9:24? I’ve never seen this one
You are the one gaming RUclipsr who has a clue. Great analysis.
I can tell you’re new to Makaimura games.
You say the chest are random.
This is not the case at all. As long as you don’t get hit, the contents of the chests follow a pattern.
(I forget the actual pattern. But it’s something like: weapon, armor, then a magician.)
What makes it seem random is that if you get hit. The pattern starts over, or maybe it’s a different pattern.
(it’s been a long time since I’ve played, so I don’t actually remember the specifics)
That being said. I haven’t played this game yet so maybe they changed it for this game.
I doubt it tho. Because this is a mechanic in every other Makaimura game.
The contents of chests follow a general pattern but are semi randomized within that pattern, for example there is a small chance that instead of armor you will get magicians, weapons are ofc randomized as well (within a range + biased in favor of certain ones in some sections). This applies to the 2nd game as well to a lesser extent, I dont remember if it does for the 3rd. Dont be condenscending if you arent sure yourself
Also I 100% disagree with your take saying that the chest should just be visible.
I think them being hidden absolutely adds to the game.
It adds replayability.
The fact I could possibly find a new chest is a big reason why I still come back to Ghouls ’n Ghosts every few years. Even though I’ve played it basically my entire life and cleared it well over 100 times.
…no hate at all. I love your channel. Just giving my 2 cents.
Keep up the good work Mark!
@@Seama327 Surely there are better ways to add replayability than simply hiding key information no? Like for example a proper scoring system. GnGR makes that extra pointless too since it has a spell that uncovers chests so their location can be learned very easily. Plus all chest locations for the older games are known anyway, so its very limited in how much replayability it can actually offer
@@boghogSTG you’re wrong about the 2nd games chests being random.
Go to the speedrun page and go to the guide page for proof. The guide is called “chest chart”
@@boghogSTG you’re wrong on the randomness of the chest. Go to the ghouls ‘n ghost speedrun page and looking the guide section for proof. The guide is called “chest chart”
Pixel art today is not a limitation, it's a choice.
Which is why they mostly are annoying.
id love to hear you talk about metroid dread design philosophy vs super metroid's
The eternal endboss of japanese video game design
:arbitrariness
lul
These reviews and insights are truly excellent. The best reviewer around - thank you always, Mark!
I think clunky is a fine descriptor, but the words they are looking for is “stiff” or “rigid” for stuff like Castlevania. In my platformers I actually tend to have better game feel with more rigid jump arcs as I generally know where to land and it makes attacks easier to aim as I am not controlling my jump at all. I just prefer that game feel compared to the momentum based physics of Mario World where I tend to slip off platforms all of the time.
And as far as limitations being important for difficulty, I think the best example is Kirby and Mario, both great series. Kirby is fun, but you almost have no limitations in where you can go as you float basically anywhere you want, making platforming trivial. But Mario you need momentum to jump to different platforms and if you accidentally slip, you fall. If Mario could be like Kirby with no limitations there would just be no challenge or fun for Mario as jumping on platforms is the whole point of the game where Kirby is a more casual experience where the fun is in doing different copy abilities. The fact is that you need this limitations to for this creativity.
Although I have my issues with pixel graphics and chip tunes not because they are pixel art, as I love old pixel art, but because old pixel art was about making characters designed well within the limitations where modern pixel art is focused on capturing those limitations instead of making the game look great. Same thing with chip tunes. There’s exceptions, but I don’t find many of them.
What game is it at 2:49 ?
It seems to be Azure Striker GUNVOLT 3!
also, a quick tip for finding games from videos like this.
take a screenshot and put it in google reverse image search. that’s how how I managed about this one!
Happy gaming!
I just started playing Monster Hunter Generations Ultimate after only playing World and Rise previously. It's not that old as a game, but it's relatively old school. And I honestly feel lied to by the reviewers who praised World for "modernizing" or even "fixing" the series.
For example: Roll canceling attack recoveries is a big thing in both new and old MH, but in the old game you can't roll cancel backwards so you have to think about positioning much more. Many enemies have attacks that are clearly designed to check your positioning with this limitation in mind and those moves are trivialized in the new games.
Man, I'd buy this game in a nanosecond if it came out physically for Switch!
You had me at 2 min mark already. 2D platformers have totally lost their identity because every single game needs to be a metroidvania with all the air dashes, double jumps, skill trees, etc. Anything less is outdated game design. It's ridiculous.
I absolutely loved Ghosts n Goblins Resurrection. It was my first game in the series and I thought it was great. Insanely challenging and tough but still fun
Hope Capcom makes another one of these games. At least give us a Legacy collection like Mega Man 👍
Most of them are on Capcom arcade stadium
YESSSS, thank you for covering this!!! This was Game of the Year 2021 IMHO, if not for so many critics getting it _completely_ wrong!
I encourage everyone to please go play this incredible game. Absolutely worth the asking price!
Good stuff
I wish they figured out a proper score system for it
Hard agree with every point you made in the video. I'll watch it later
What are your thoughts on Ultimate Ghouls N Ghosts for the PSP? I remember the "clunky" controls were also a point of criticism for that game as well back then. Your sentiment that game design has been dumbed down because of allowing the player more movement freedom has unfortunately been around since about the PS3 era.
I absolutely loved this game. Even more than any of the previous entries. It's gorgeous, and the mastery between checkpoints is so great. Everything is so deliberate, so well tuned and doable, you just have to pin it down and pull it off, keep the pattern in check. Totally agree that expression within lines affords the design some very unique, palatable qualities that give the gameplay depth and individuality. I really enjoy fast, fluid games as well, but I don't need everything to be completely spastic, mashy and weightless in all games. It's like expecting Souls games to be Bayonetta, or chess to be Crossfire.
There are certainly games that feel clunky to play, dodgy hit boxes, overly animated moves etc etc.
But a game like GnG or SGnG and RE4 and even games like mario bros. and Donkey kong or one of my favorite underdogs of gaming, Evil Within (I don't care what anyone says, that game is a masterpiece!) all have this methodical gameplay where the amazement of gameplay is in knowing how to play the game
Awesome breakdown, really motivates me to start writing more about game design.
Been meaning to check out this game for a while now. “Clunky” can definitely be a cop out.
And limitation is definitely key, RE4 is better without a right analog stick by far.
Have you had a chance to play Outward? Game is the biggest mixed bag in reviews getting shit on for being clunky and outdated but considered the best rpg this decade for others.
Thanks for not just pointing the way the average player gets wrong, but also actually pointing the real BS this game has.
Wich could have a separate ingame mode or atleast a mod that fixes the RNG, lingering drops and hidden chests.
Simply put, one of the best games I've played in years.
Looking at some of the boghog cheap deaths that was just not really well playtested. Especially the fire pillar and unavoidable jump death. They should have really stopped spawning those fires when the pillar is all the way on the right.
The fire pillar is actually my bad, I later learned that you can neutral jump over them even if it doesnt seem like it, its just very tight, especially when youre being chased by another pillar. The platform rng though? Thats just complete bullshit, even the usual crutch of magic s wouldnt help there. Its very, very rare though (both the Beelzebub and Astaroth stuff happened only once in god knows how many hundreds of fights I did with them) so I see why playtests didn't catch it
It isn't bs, should've played around it. :P @@boghogSTG
@@HighLanderPonyYTstop making excuses for shit design
I wouldn't be surprised if you already knew about this but it's worth stating, Egoraptor made a love letter about the old castlevania and how its limitations were fundamental to it and that it was what made it great. Its a good video. I've never even played a castlevania.
He has a lot more garbage takes
His takes are based.
I just found out recently they had a "Kai" version of the PSP game in japan that removed all the collection and backtracking in the original version. It supposedly plays much more like the original games
I'd say "bad camera" is even more cliche, but you're absolutely right
People want to be able to control the bowling ball as it's rolling down the lane. Love GnG Resurrection and the more committed and realistic jump.
Interesting video. I agree with the general thesis that constraints/limitations can make for a creative experience, but I have some disagreements.
When it comes to aesthetic choice, it simply comes down to preference of theme and overall presentation. Pixel art games can and do work even today because visuals and sound design are a conduit to the overall feel of the game; as long as there is nothing fundamentally broken about them, they can work fantastically to deliver the experience the dev wishes to deliver. If Link to the Past came out today, it would still be an amazing game because the general “limitation” of the art style and audio design does not hinder the overall experience in the timeless dungeon design, overworld exploration, and well-hidden secrets to uncover, which are the core of the gameplay.
Contrast that with a game like Goldeneye 64, which would not be nearly as well received because the controls are the crux of the experience for a game like that. I don’t see much of a reason to play a game like Goldeneye 64 aside from nostalgia, precisely because the controls are so clunky and jarring. If I’m playing an FPS, I want smooth movement and aim to express my skill by maneuvering and shooting enemies. I don’t consider having rigid, inefficient controls in a shooter to be anything more than a frustrating obstacle as opposed to a limitation to provoke creativity.
I think your comments about too much choice and expression stifling risk/reward were interesting, but this is only evident in the earlier games (which you maybe are aware of and purposely highlighted). Early SF games are renowned for being hilariously imbalanced thanks in large part to pre-internet hotfixes/patches and a predatory business model in which arcade machines existed to eat your quarters. SSF2 Akuma is pickable only as a hidden secret character, and even the toned-down pickable version was STILL banned for competitive play. Contrast that with a more modern game where balance was actually considered, like USFIV, and you can clearly see how having character expression and limitless choice not only did not hurt creativity, but fostered it. If you watch competitive play you can clearly distinguish the differences between Dieminion’s lame, slow-paced Guile, zoning you out with sonic booms, vs Fuson’s in your face, aggressive, punch-you-in-the-face style. With a game like SFV, you can see the differences in how Justin Wong played his Menat, pressing heavy buttons from a distance, vs Sako, who was incredibly execution-heavy.
This is all to say that I think having a lot of freedom of options in games is not necessarily a bad thing as long as you have to pick and choose when to use them. In Sekiro, it’s true that you have i-frame dodges and parries, but they aren’t get out of jail free cards. Choosing which option, and when to use it is a critical skill since many attacks are designed to counter a specific choice. Using an attack or choosing to use your Gourd locks you into the animation the same way doing a DP does in fighting games; it’s a commitment. Commit at the wrong time and you’re punished.
Also, your point about the aspect ratio was something I hadn’t considered in terms of updating it for modern times while breaking parts of it by not accounting for lingering weapons on the screen… that’s a great point, and something that should be taken into account. Having the wider screen does however alleviate a lot of my gripes with older 4:3 games in that the limited distance you’re able to see tends to result in a bunch of nonsense coming at you from offscreen before you have any idea what happened, or committing to a jump only to have an enemy waiting offscreen on the other side of the jump, who knocks you back into insta-kill spikes, and (in my experience at least) devolve into a game of “just react, and you can get out of this sitatuon” which ironically is something you seem to be railing against.
I know this was mostly meant to be in relation to Ghosts n Goblins, but I found the topic interesting and had some tangential thoughts. Very good video! Liked and subbed.