Did Ff16 Flop?

None of what you said here has anything to do with depth (unless you want to give "depth" a different countable metric, which you didn't).

We are talking in circles at this point.

Edit: also, I already know you don't know anything about this topic yourself and never counted. You don't have to repeat it the 3rd time.

Because depthness to you is just the amount of skills available you can smash to see combos before touching the ground. It's a limited DMC huh-duh approach. As such, your claim is pretty simple and rather stupid: more skills = deeper battle system. You fail to realize that mashing a bunch of skills together is typical of games that cater to casual people who don't want to take a game serious. This doesn't make a game better or worse than the other. It's just a preference.

If you thought of depthness as anything but smashing skills, you would have realized that what I have been saying speaks to the depthness of the battle system Sekiro provides.


You can always stop responding. It's an option.

I wasn't the one who defined depth this way. It was defined by gaming community. Idk why you blamed that on DMC.

Also it wasn't defined as total available skill, but viable optimal skill. which you keep missing.


I would like to, but then you will quote my post AND twist my words into something else that I never say, and I ended up have to clarify it over and over.

Honestly it is annoying.



Never say they are. It's the 5th time that I have to clarify.

You are the only person who thinks depth means better, despite I never say that. Depth is just preference and design direction. Some games just have less optimal viable skills than another and that's okay, no need to get mad.

So if you don't agree with my definition on depth, what is your definition then?

You still haven't define it yourself after all that text.

As soon as you got called out for your lame DMC deeper battle than Sekiro you started asking how many movesets-skills etc are there in DMC in comparison to Sekiro. Ever since I have been speaking about boss reaction, survival (bosses dodging-deflecting and whooping your ***) etc as part of what also makes the battle system deeper and more complex.


Like what you do when you say "for you a deeper battle system just means fun"? LOLLLLL


When have I made such claim? I didn't even make the claim that Sekiro is a better game than DMC. I was just laughing at you making the king of Duh-DUh smash 2000x combo a good example of deep battle system.

Yeah but ultimately it is still a number game when it comes to viable decisions available in a game. Boss reaction design nor difficulty doesn't change the number of optimal choices available in a game. The amount of choices available to players in game is always limited by moveset numbers. No matter how the boss moves you can't do things that the system doesn't allow you to do.

Fyi it wasn't even MY opinion that depth is defined by numbers of viable decisions, here is one discussion about battle system depth in one of the gaming community.

https://www.resetera.com/threads/can-someone-please-direct-me-to-a-combat-system-with-depth-whatever-that-means.168225/

In the discussion people literally defined depth the exact same way I did:(no, it isn't my account)



In the entire discussion games that are the most frequently being brought up are either turn based games, or fighting games. Both genres are inherently deeper than action genre.

In terms of action games DMC, Bayonetta, ninja Gaiden and Nioh was brought up several times. DMC got mentioned over and over again in the whole discussion.

Not many people mentioned dark souls despite the popularity (some say DS is shallow even) and almost no one say Sekiro is deep.

My opinion on this matter isn't even too different from other people's.

You are the only person who tried to argue something different here. Because your definition of depth (like boss dodge-deflect) is NOT in line with everyone else's definition on the meaning of depth.

Like I said before, depth is simply a design choice and preference. It is okay to dislike fighting games or DMC. But to argue the definition of depth by try to redefine it in a way that is different from everyone else is a different matter.

this is an interesting conversation.

unfortunately though it doesn't matter as SE themselves said ff7/16 flopped. the question of the thread was answered.

please head to your designated future simping threads

Duh-duh DMC all the option you really need is mash keys... it will work itself out.

Idk why you are trying to make DMC look like it has any depth to it.. it was meant to be a braindead smash it all game.

No not really. It's fine to dislike DMC, it's another to say "smash keys" will work itself out. That's exaggerating to an extreme degree.

Try to smash keys in blood palace lv80+, DMD mode, I promise you will get *** kicked too, as getting hit once can take 1/4 of HP away or more, while facing multiple enemies on the same time on every direction. Some enemies have mechanics that specifically designed to counter button mashers.

There are plenty of people in the action game community agree that dmc5 is much harder to plat than soulsborn games.

Edit: Soulsborn game generally has a higher floor because even first playthrough is hard. DMC has lower floor but higher ceiling. Getting first story mode run complete is braindead easy, then the difficulty slowly goes up from there.

lol... DMC is the raw definition of smash buttons. When it gets difficult, smash it with your forehead and it should do the trick.

I know that you are one of the few around here that would go ffoooooorrrrreeeeeevvvvvvvveeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrrrrr saying the same thing over and over even when a company itself has said otherwise (your case with ff16.. lol) but DMC is DEFINED AS HACK AND SLASH. It was meant to be fun and easy going... not deep... it's a game where a shirtless vampire rides a motorcycle down a building while smashing it against demons. lol.

I keep saying the same thing over and over because you have zero ability to understand what "deep" means when people uses this word to describe battle system in the gaming community despite I provided links lol. Go read the link I posted above again.

Depth has nothing to do with genre(though certain genre has an advantage at increasing skill numbers), it is simply used to describe how many decisions that you can make in any given situation.

Hack and slash is genre. Hack and slash genre can be deep, if your character has 100+ available skills that are all equally useful in every situation, then it is battle system with depth. Jrpg can be shallow, if you only have 3 useful skills per turn.


Depth also has nothing to do with boss difficulty. You can make the boss so difficult that every hit is one shot kill, if you only have 3 skills to handle it then it is not deep.

At best boss design increases balance between skills, it doesn't increase skills available.

You repeatly failed to grasp the concept of this word and keep arguing difficulty because you personally can't accept the definition of this word for whatever reason.

Depth is NOT a word to describe difficulty nor genre. We are talking in circles at this point.

This is the meaning of depth, explained visually, from gamedesignskills.com.




No one has mentioned anything about hack and slash nor boss difficulty when this term is being discussed. It has always been about the possible decisions (state change) that you can make minus the redundant ones.

You know, NUMBERS.

You are the only person who refuse to accept this commonly used definition, without being able to give this term a different definition.

As far as DMC battle system goes, it does have a lot of relevant states despite it is hack and slash. The possible states is already very high with 8 weapons and over 100+ moves available at any given time.

Every move has different attributes (air, push back, stun, attack range, swing speed, dmg dealt, style points, combo connect etc). The relevant depth is increased as all of these attributes need to be considered when players pick a move. The results is large amount of relevant skills in the pool. Which fits the definition of depth from the above chart.

Your personal feelings of DMC does no matter here. What matters is NUMBERS when this term is used.

Smash them all together and you do a BADASS COOMMBOOOO 20000X. lol... that's deep...

You run out of things to say or what? Lol.

Btw I have a fun video for you, starts on 00:30.



Spark! Slash slash slash.
Spark! Slash slash slash.
Spark! Slash slash slash.

Sekiro combat in a nutshell.

Pretty much. Unfortunately I've read enough of your arguments in this website to know how shallow and repetitive your arguments are. It's hard to explain to you that 2+2 = 4.

I guess I can't say without making it a personal insult, can't you realize that the video you provided discredits your entire argument? Or did you not watch the video you provided?

Here is what dumb hack-slash-smash-button looks like. :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9so2ttqof4


Geez brother.. take a break and go smash some buttons... lol

Not agreeing with Godfry, because I haven't played any of the DMCs, so I don't have a handle on them, but Sekiro gameplay is a lot more than its bosses alone and a lot more than Corrupted Monk. (Which your video's gameplay actually starts sooner than 30 seconds because the player is incorporating the stealth deathblow cheese strategy that's available on this boss, one of the only full bosses that allows for that tactic).


Here is a tier list picture that shows all of the prosthetics and their upgrades with this reddit player's opinion on their utility.


This is just the prosthetics, mind you. The meat of Sekiro's gameplay comes from the standardized sword play with deflecting and dodging, where it becomes like a rhythm game. You also jump, sprint, and grapple with your rope arm infinitely. This sees a change if you unlock skill trees available through several different skill codexes (Esoteric Texts) that are unlocked through gameplay, the most drastic shifting one being the Senpou Temple karate style fighting that deals higher posture damage than any other techniques but are harder to incorporate into the rhythm of Sekiro's encounters.

Here is a video that has a better representation of Sekiro's gameplay, as far as bosses are concerned. It demonstrates a couple of the prosthetics (non-optimally) as well as item use, including unique only 1 in the entire playthrough type items.



Sekiro is a game where your optimal choices change based on the enemy you are facing. Most of its general enemies can be bypassed with stealth or by running through, but the game does wall off progress with mini-bosses often, and every enemy has the potential to be fatal if not treated with a modicum of respect.

Like most of the souls games, you can boil it down to dodge/block and hit when there's an opening, but that's the most basic facet of any action game, no? Everything you find is relevant to empowering your character, but you have to get the timing down for everything on every enemy, otherwise whatever you're using won't be any better than anything else, and then, of course, as intended a lot of monsters/bosses have special weakness to specific prosthetics.

My comment about DMC system isn't even only MY opinion though.


https://www.resetera.com/threads/can-someone-please-direct-me-to-a-combat-system-with-depth-whatever-that-means.168225/


People's opinion on Sekiro
https://www.reddit.com/r/Sekiro/comments/b4nhxa/game_design_pseudo_rant/




I linked an essay and 2 different discussions from different forums while you link nothing, just repeating "Duh-duh DMC buttonmasher" over and over again.

If you want to accuse me for making shallow and repetitive arguments at least you should link more essays than me.

Proceed to share a Reddit post of one individual's personal opinion that titled his post
Are you trolling at this point? lol. Also, the reddit guy, just like you, just want to make badass combo and got owned by the Isshin.

I am under the impression that gameplay being reactionary and rhythm game like is the entire reason behind community complaining about Sekiro combat system.

I do agree that when people complain about DS or Sekiro combat being shallow, they are probably comparing with games using the absolute highest options available in the genre, such as dmc. That doesn't mean games with less option is bad of course. If Godfry argued that the options available in Sekiro is good enough for the game I would have agree.

When the argument enter the terroritory of "DMC is shallow because it is beat them up, Sekiro is deep because bosses is hard" that's when the conversation goes nowhere. As the original meaning of depth wasn't addressed.


Godfry, please learn from Vyre about making a proper argument in a mechanics discussion. His posts are 100x more convincing than yours because he actually provided NUMBERS to support a claim.


I am aware that corrupted monk cheese doesn't represent the whole game. It is a response to people exaggerating when they can't make a proper argument.

I'm telling you.. you are just trolling at this point... DMC and DS game same genre. Geez...

Duh-huh 2000x Badass badge!

Even arguing DMC isn't in the same genre as DS thus they can't be directly compared is 10 times more convincing then all that Duh-huh spams lol.

Yeah a lot of Souls veterans struggled with it at first, myself included, because Souls games aren't rhythm games and you can opt into other defensive strategies that are comparable in effectiveness, whereas in Sekiro, there's only a few, and they all require proper timing (Deflection, Guarding, Umbrella versions of those, Mist Raven prosthetic).

I think what Godfry is driving at, or was before he devolved into posting, "Hur Dur" every other post is that DMC combat doesn't seem deep because you can stop the enemies from fighting essentially by juggling them, but even I know from watching my roommate in the Navy play the first one that there are bosses and mini-bosses that take different approaches, as well as the Devil Trigger transformations and stuff.

Seem to me like the point of DMC combat is to make grinding through dozens of enemies feel fun on a lot of levels by having Dante do stuff like swing two motorcycles into them repeatedly. Then you get the Virgil like boss fights where there's loads of frame perfect dodging and quick time events and such. You're a half demon, son of ?Sparda? and supposed to be the *** of the walk.

Whereas the point of Sekiro combat is basically... original concept for the game was a disgraced Samurai, but From thought that no one would want to be bound by a code like that, so they opted to make him a Ninja instead, and so you're supposed to demonstrate several dozen different kinds of skills and be, "clever" by exploiting weaknesses and the options stealth gives you. Best example I can think of is in the Hirata Estates memories. Towards the end of the memory there's a giant fat swordsman and a buncha dudes surrounding him. In either memory traversal, it's best to use stealth to one shot problem enemies and pick them all off, one by one, the aim of the game being a sort of realism in that you are alone and outnumbered and disadvantaged, so you have to even the odds. You're tough and skilled but far from invincible.

Both games have depth, but they're delving into different pools from the outset. Comparison is interesting, but kind of fruitless. They're different experiences with different aims for player feel from the word go.

To me juggling isn't too different from CC(crowd control) in a rpg. In souls or Sekiro, players generally face less enemies at once. Sekiro's system is designed to be one on one at heart, that's why it comes a stealth system to reduce enemy amount. Hence CC plays a less important role as stealth kill can take down additional enemies.

DMC doesn't work this way and players often deal with 5 enemies at once, so CC has a much more important role for survival. Picking the right mob to CC is part of strategy and gameplay. Having multiple options for CC doesn't necessarily mean the combat system is easy nor simple, as the encounters are balanced for players having CC abilities to begin with.

DMC was meant to be Duh-huh... again.. it's a game where a shirtless vampire rides a motorcycle down a building while smashing it against demons. It's ok to like duh-huh games. I absolutely love Doom and I hope they keep Doom duh-huh shoot them up type of game.

Now... I don't go around a FFXI forum to say I like doom because of its deep approach to combat cause... you know...

edit: It's hard to take you serious because you seem to have no idea of what you are talking about because you talk about games that you haven't even touched. Reason why you say stupid things like a hack-and-slash game being in the same genre as a role-play action one.

Just as I thought you finally learned how to make a proper argument in a mechanics discussion it went back to shirtless duh huh again.....


DISAPPOINT. ;(

I think my only complaint about Sekiro after having beaten it a lot for the platinum and just for fun and once as an LP is that it's a bit short. It really relies on its difficulty to feel long.

By the time you get fully kitted out, there's not a lot of game left, so it kind of feels like there's not a lot of stuff to use your best things on, and when you enter into NG+ like the Souls games, the monsters and bosses get more HP and damage, but are the same...

Which I mean, still lets you re-experience the whole game with your full kit, but there's a lot of situations that you didn't need most of the kit for, so you don't think to try it out except just to see what happens.

Where the *** did I say that?

Saying juggling is crowd control is NOT the same as saying hack and slash is rpg LOL. Crowd control is a game mechanic, not genre.

Can you even read?

Also what do you mean by I haven't even touch?

Also, stop lying.. you haven't played the game.

I haven't played the game for you because I said things that you don't want to hear, get it.

It's okay, you like Sekiro, I got it. It is a very well made package indeed. But god forbid someone else find it boring.

Some people seem to conflate simplicity with shallowness (the 2nd term having mostly negative connotations), and complexity with depth (the 2nd term used as praise). That's the crux of the issue.