pierrot wrote:Ack wrote:I understand why folks say this is mindless repetition, but the thing is, many video games are mindless repetition! Nearly every hack and slash game consists of fighting the same types of monsters over and over again in different arrangements. God of War is mindless hack and slash: this time it's a harpy and three minotaurs. Now two minotaurs, four harpies, and a medusa. Now a medusa and eight harpies. Over and over again. 3D Castlevania: two werewolves and a zombie. Now four zombies and a troll. Now five werewolves and two trolls. 2D Castlevania: long corridor with infinite zombies and three skeletons. Big room with four skeletons and infinite medusa heads. Tall corridor with infinite medusa heads. Metroid: Long cave, three space pirates, go small and blow up wall. Long tunnel, no enemies, use missile on door.
The difference being that most of these games mentioned will vary the gameplay in more substantial ways: QTEs, puzzles, exploration, unencumbered exposition, etc.
As opposed to various items, elemental attachments, finding and unlocking new weapons, stat progression, bodyguard development, and a large variety of maps with differing events and win conditions to unlock?
And at this point, I'm glad Dynasty Warriors doesn't have QTE.
pierrot wrote:Ack wrote:It's like a beat 'em up with 30 playable characters, many of which may have similar movesets but none which have the exact same, and none of which are simple palette swaps.
There's an inherent challenge, and more nuanced style of gameplay with 2D b'mups, though, I feel. As traditionally arcade influenced games, the player is more likely beset upon by somewhat formidable enemies, with much less margin for error. There's more of a necessity for some amount of critical thinking, and sharp reflex in order to do well. I don't really see the two styles as all that comparable.
If Dynasty Warriors, et al were a bit more about multiplayer, massive army free-for-alls, rather than single-player campaigns, then I could probably get behind them more. I'd still probably consider them far too many for their own good, though.
Actually, multiplayer was how I was introduced to the series and is still how I play it with my family. Yes, I've spent my fair share of time playing singleplayer, but over Thanksgiving I brought a PS2, and my brother and I sat back and played through several campaigns with our favorite characters.
And while on easier levels one can easily power through the game, going for higher difficulties proves more challenging, and there are several strategies I've noticed that develop amongst friends: do you hunt officers, do you close gates and bases, do you clear enemies in the field, or do you seek setting off events which might bolster morale for your side or prevent those which bolster the opposition? On Easy, the game's largely just hack and slash, but these kinds of decisions and strategies become much more important on higher difficulties, as does learning each map. And these strategies change with each entry, as Koei experiments with new battlefield layouts, battlefields, traps, styles for fighting officers(such as dueling), mobility options, items, special items, weapons progression systems, bodyguards, differing enemy units(such as ghosts, grenadiers, archers, beastmasters, etc.), and available characters.
I also play a lot of beat 'em ups, and the "nuance" that tends to feature most heavily involves simply not getting between two enemies and favoring jumpkicks or throws. In a game like God of War or Castlevania: Lords of Shadow, the nuance is rolling properly and learning each enemy's unique death QTE. I get far more bored with the repetition playing God of War than any Dynasty Warriors game.
