One thing it did for me: if I was slaughtered, I wouldn't run back until I killed more enemies and upgraded my weapons and myself.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
What exactly does the walk from checkpoint to bossfight add to the design of the Soulsborne games?
- Thread starter Zhukov
- Start date
It adds tedium. It adds frustrstion. It adds time wasted. It adds a bad design decision that people can defend online for no valid reason.
Sekiro having good checkpoint placement is a big reason the game is so much better.
Sekiro having good checkpoint placement is a big reason the game is so much better.
Because you can die on the way there and lose your stuff.....duh
Not stupid in the slightest. Earn that shit. Quit complaining. Run past enemies it's not hard.
Run. Don't fight.
The grind is only in the beginning of these games because you have little stamina.
Stick with it it's very rewarding.
Not stupid in the slightest. Earn that shit. Quit complaining. Run past enemies it's not hard.
Run. Don't fight.
The grind is only in the beginning of these games because you have little stamina.
Stick with it it's very rewarding.
Dark Souls 2 got rid of it. Fans liked it better the traditional way.
I think it has more to do with prioritizing bonfire placement over making someone run back to the boss. Bonfires set the pace and tension of the levels. You're ultimately trying to get to the boss but rely on bonfires to get there. Having a bonfire right next to every single boss just so you don't have to run there for the 20th time kills the tension when playing for the first time.
OP and some many people aren't focusing on the correct part. Instead of focusing on running back after dying to the boss, your focus should be on figuring out how to beat the boss so you don't have to run back. This isn't me trying to be snarky and reword "git gud".
OP and some many people aren't focusing on the correct part. Instead of focusing on running back after dying to the boss, your focus should be on figuring out how to beat the boss so you don't have to run back. This isn't me trying to be snarky and reword "git gud".
If you enjoy the game, then it's not a problem, and it helps a person "git gud". You learn, get stronger, and it gets easier and quicker.
And really in many cases in these games you can literally just run past lot of the shitty parts if you don't want to bother fighting most things. People seem to get stuck thinking they have to stop and fight everything, just ignore what you don't want to most of the time and only fight what you really have to if it's bugging you.
And really in many cases in these games you can literally just run past lot of the shitty parts if you don't want to bother fighting most things. People seem to get stuck thinking they have to stop and fight everything, just ignore what you don't want to most of the time and only fight what you really have to if it's bugging you.
What?
Literally nobody else has made this argument/connection.
Neither myself nor anyone I've played with has been invaded on the runs to a boss, which usually take around a minute when you know what you're doing.
These runs are usually miles away from the typical "PvP zones" in the game
Adding a bonfire right before a boss in a Soulsborne game would not change anything. I firmly believe it's nothing to do with multiplayer.
I Wanna Be The Guy had good checkpoint placement. It had unavoidable first time deaths every minute and level design built around memorisation. Say it's not a good game all you want. But the game had frequent checkpoint placement and always had a checkpoint right before a boss. Unless you were playing on Very Hard or Impossible.
I think they teach you that the pathway to get to the boss is never as bad as you initially think it is, which is really the overall lesson of these games. After one or two runs, you realize that it's easy to avoid everything.
Done properly:
It adds a sense of tension because "I really don't want to have to sprint past those enemies again" and, more importantly, it forces you to take a few moments to recalibrate between every fight. It actually prevents players from being on tilt because of that forced breather between every fight.
Similarly, it encourages you to actually engage in jolly coop because things feel a lot more dangerous.
Done poorly and it is tedious, forces you to pay a health tax before every fight, and makes me uninstall the game.
It adds a sense of tension because "I really don't want to have to sprint past those enemies again" and, more importantly, it forces you to take a few moments to recalibrate between every fight. It actually prevents players from being on tilt because of that forced breather between every fight.
Similarly, it encourages you to actually engage in jolly coop because things feel a lot more dangerous.
Done poorly and it is tedious, forces you to pay a health tax before every fight, and makes me uninstall the game.
Invasions do happen a lot there because there's more people in human form as I said for coop or extra health, it's also where players tend to use dried fingers more for the extra coop phantoms (which also adds extra invaders ). The only people that run human while going through a stage is the people that are people doing coop runs, rest they don't risk it. I'm talking about invasions, not pvp matches which are different.
Of course if you speedrush there's not much time to get invaded, but that's true for, like the whole game, you can speedrush the whole game, taking 1-2 minutes from bonfire to bonfire.
Btw , people here did made that connection before, although I don't even know what does it matter anyways, when this is simply my opinion.
Last edited:
It encourages learning the levels and understanding the encounters on the way to the boss. Every shortcut you unlock that makes it easier to traverse the level will cut down the time it takes to get to the boss. Certain enemies can be skipped, lifts can be reset to their starting location (by rolling off the plate mechanisms after you have gone up or down in the lift to it's destination). You can engage in some PvP if you want to take a break from the boss itself or opt to place your summon sign and help other players against their boss to also observe the bosses patterns with other players around you.
It also harks back to a time in gaming when you had to progress past multiple screens of enemies and death sent you back to the first screen. When games expected you to learn attack patterns and avoid pitfalls to progress. End of the day if you are getting too frustrated, just switch the game off and cool some steam and go back when you are ready. It's not a poor design choice it's just something that isn't for everyone. And that's ok.
It also harks back to a time in gaming when you had to progress past multiple screens of enemies and death sent you back to the first screen. When games expected you to learn attack patterns and avoid pitfalls to progress. End of the day if you are getting too frustrated, just switch the game off and cool some steam and go back when you are ready. It's not a poor design choice it's just something that isn't for everyone. And that's ok.
OP
OP
As mentioned in the OP, I tried it.
Didn't like it, but for completely different reasons. I've never been much good at parrying in these games. At least to me, the timing feels weirdly inconsistent. For example, in Bloodborne I'm constantly parrying an attack and putting the enemy into the stunned state, but still being hit, damaged and staggered by the attack that I evidently parried. So Sekiro relying almost entirely on parrying got real tiresome real fast. I don't have the reflexes to differentiate a sweep from a thrust and react with both the appropriate action and correct timing. Perhaps with practice, but I play games to be entertained and engaged, not to perform chores.
Plus, the mythology-infused sengoku jidai setting doesn't do a whole lot for me. Clashes oddly with some of the mechanics too. These are supposedly regular non-undead dudes I'm fighting, right? Why are they springing back to life whenever I take a breather?
Sadly, it actually fixes a lot of the things I don't like about the other soulsborne games. As has been mentioned by others in this thread, the checkpoint placement is less aggravating. The finishing moves make kills much more satisfying, with bespoke animations rather than limply phasing a sword through an enemy's body until they comically ragdoll.
So I'm not saying it's bad. If you love Japanese architecture and parrying then I'm sure it's the absolute tits. It's just not for me.
Just because you don't like it, that doesn't mean other people's reasoning is invalid. Sekiro having a surplus of checkpoints and warps didn't actually make the encounter designs easier by comparison either. You could already basically fly past most of the trash before a boss anyway, but once you hit the boss, you had to tediously clear any surrounding trash all over again if you previously died. Considering how steep the learning curve with that game is on some fights, you likely had to clear the same trash multiple times. Instead of having it dispersed and easily dispatched or avoided on the way, you had to fight it all at once upon reaching your destination.
Did you play offline mostly, or did you play very late into the game's lifecycle? Being invaded on the way to a boss happened at least a third of the time for me during the first few months of its initial release. There was also no "typical PvP zone" (aside from the Garden) in the first Dark Souls. As soon as someone invaded, fog blocked your progress forward.
Last edited:
A bit of punishment from losing. If we are going to argue this, why not just argue what the point of having a health bar is or why the game doesn't just let you resurrect mid fight? What's the point of having to wear down the enemy's health again? It's the same logic. Dying is meant to be unpleasant so it has meaning. The less work that is required after dying, the less gravity death has in a video game.
You can design a game where the act of dying is a tool for learning. Hotline Miami does this really well. Souls on the other hand wants dying to feel bad. Neither design is bad. You just have preferences and that's okay.
You can design a game where the act of dying is a tool for learning. Hotline Miami does this really well. Souls on the other hand wants dying to feel bad. Neither design is bad. You just have preferences and that's okay.
Damn, missed it at the end of your OPs very first line.
Funny you say that. In Bloodborne I tried to parry attacks perhaps fifty times and successfully managed it perhaps three of those times. I find Bloodborne's parrying mechanic infuriating. I only recently read it's got quite a long wind-up (relatively) and that's probably what was thwarting me.
Sekiro on the other hand - I love the feel of the parrying and the combat. I never parried in the other games and I'm not big on it, but in Sekiro, when it clicks, it clicks. It helps to bear in mind that every single non-perilous (red) attack in the game can be parried (a couple will still give "burn" but they're the only exceptions). It becomes more of a rhythm game at that point.
Still, fair enough that you gave it a shake and didn't feel it.
Not much, majority of bosses can be ran to really quickly with no issues. There's of course a few exclusions to the rule, but I never felt like it was a punishment going back to a boss in any souls-like game I've played.
One of the best recent examples is Genchiro in Sekiro. You start right under that fight with nothing in your way to get to him and it doesn't take away from the fight itself.
One of the best recent examples is Genchiro in Sekiro. You start right under that fight with nothing in your way to get to him and it doesn't take away from the fight itself.
Actually nothing. In theory there would be a challenge to getting from the checkpoint n back, without getting touched. As it also adds a bit of a punishment for you having to do it again. The problem is trying to avoid enemies is actually fun in 2D games, because by nature it adds to the obstacle course nature of those type of games. In 3D?
It's not hard to run past enemies, so it's just a tedious thing you do over n over n over n over n over again.
WHy I think they kept with it for so long as the more organic/consistent feeling for their world design. The way the games loop in on themselves is some of the coolest parts of those games, so I could see them being content with just a super short run to the boss fight. It is utlimately a minor inconvenience in what are otherwise good games.
It's not hard to run past enemies, so it's just a tedious thing you do over n over n over n over n over again.
WHy I think they kept with it for so long as the more organic/consistent feeling for their world design. The way the games loop in on themselves is some of the coolest parts of those games, so I could see them being content with just a super short run to the boss fight. It is utlimately a minor inconvenience in what are otherwise good games.
Am I supposed to feel bad about disagreeing with From lol? I don't because A. Sekiro is a different thing B. I disagree with creators' decisions all the time. Who cares? and C. the only Souls game I love and have seen to completion on controls myself is Dark 1. So I'm only a fanboy of that game in particular. I have played significant amount of their other games, and I like them significantly less. From Soft and their works are not sacred to me.
That's a little bit what it feels like to me truthfully, but I think the OP from Zhukov and their replies are in good faith. Some posts from others have been mildly, mildly rude in their dismissiveness but that's okay. I'm a little saddened at how many strongly dislike the checkpoint system, but it's just a game discussion. And it's a really popular game (that maybe wasn't expected to be as such as much as it is) folks have a lot of strong opinions about. It is what it is.
OP
OP
Hi. It's the former. (Although of course I'd say that, right?)
Not going to pretend I wasn't annoyed by the design decision I question in the OP, but I moved on from the game a month ago. I was genuinely curious to see if anyone would have any insight into why it was done the way it was.
Granted, I have found 90% of the answers given to be unsatisfactory. The exception is that it serves the multiplayer, which makes sense to me.
Except that's more or less what I do anyway. Just with a tedious stroll between attempts.
The stroll doesn't help me learn the boss's attack patterns and probe for counter attack opportunities. That's how you learn to beat the bosses and those things can only be done while fighting the boss, something that is just delayed by the walkback, not assisted.
Last edited:
I mean this is one of those threads where nobody's gonna change the OP's mind and people who agree with them will come out to post in droves, so what is there to say really other than I disagree with you and think it's a crucial part of the game's design?
As a game designer I'm always up for gameplay mechanics discussion, especially advantages and disadvantages of mechanics in the context of what audiences might or might not like (rather than personal preference). It's when one camp pretends a mechanic has no advantages (or disadvantages), dismiss or outright ignores any that are presented, and paints the design choice in terms of "obviously right" and "obviously wrong", that I bow out of the discussion because it's not productive or really a "discussion" in any meaningful sense of the word.
Some mechanics are more prone to this; unsurprisingly, mechanics that hinder the player (boss run, permadeath, weapon durability) are the most often presented as unambiguously bad design choices, while mechanics that help the player (fast travel, infinite respawns, etc.) are often touted as "obviously good" regardless of the game's design and context.
Aside from the challenge getting easier for you each time, it's to provide tangible consequences for failure. If you just restart the fight you don't feel the risk/reward loop the game is built around. "Just losing" isn't as good as knowing "Shit I have to run through half the place again if I lose this fight" which adds to the hopelessness and theming the game is going for.
The stroll forces you to maximize each attempt on the boss, including how to most efficiently learn the boss' attack patterns. Without it, you can simply fight it ten times in a row to learn everything it does, and / or simply zerg it until one of the times you get lucky and win. If you're "zerging" (as in, literally, mindlessly rushing the boss) when there's an actual stroll, you're obviously playing very suboptimally, because each attempt is lenghtened by a flat amount of time no matter how quick or methodical you are. However, with no stroll, zerging becomes a viable tactic, because a higher number of quick and sloppy attempts on the boss may actually achieve success sooner than a smaller number of more methodical attempts.
Also, if the game is correctly designed, the path to the boss should present some challenge, and hold the threat of actually dying before reaching the boss over the player's head (Dark Souls for the most part does this pretty well). This forces you to change mental gears constantly between navigating the stroll and fighting the boss. If you "solve" the path to the boss (allowing you to navigate it without thinking) before you "solve" the boss itself, then something has gone wrong. It might be the game (the stroll is not challenging enough), or it might be that for whatever reason, the boss is particularly hard for you.
I'm not saying you should - that argument was directed at all people who repeatedly harp on about From's creative decisions being perfect and sacrosanct. You are not the object of my post.
Agreed. I think game mechanics that add frustration are not inherently bad. But apparently a lot of people feel differently and want to make you feel like a bad person for thinking differently lol.
1. Mastery is repetition
2. Setback as punishment for failure
And you can always ignore this design choice and easily run past mobs.
2. Setback as punishment for failure
And you can always ignore this design choice and easily run past mobs.
Loosing souls isn't even that much of an incentive unless you're someone who runs around with a massive collection, the only thing the walk does is waste my time.
OP
OP
I guess I just don't think tedium is a good punishment.
I mean, would you be in favour of a game using artificially extended loading screens to punish failure?
I'm sorry, this makes zero sense to me.
Fighting the boss ten times in a row to learn what it does is exactly what you do anyway. Is that not what you do? How else do you learn that that one attack is a five hit chain, and that one windup indicates a double spin, and so on?
I'm pretty sure zerging a boss, as you describe it, is virtually impossible in soulsborne games anyway. If you're just flailing away at a boss you're going to get minced (unless it's Pinwheel in Dark Souls I suppose). Hell, the stamina mechanic alone basically guarantees that.
Fair enough.
That's too true sometimes.
I think a lot of folks just want straight-up power fantasies, and that's okay. That's not really what I'm most interested in and appreciate about Souls, but it does have a large element of that in its loop of overcoming scary, gargantuan bosses and swinging big badass swords. Through the explosion of the series that's probably what's been latched onto the most. And it's a cool, memorable thing so I can't really be mad about it.
It forces you to learn the encounters well enough to decide whether or not it's safe enough to run past them. I consider them to be part of the boss fight (especially mentally) and the only time I really had a problem with it was against Manus.
I know this was a joke, but I'm sure a bunch of people wouldn't mind a hardcore mode for Souls even though it doesn't make sense thematically.
No because that's not gameplay. And a false equivalence of sorts.
Long load screens are a technical failure that the player has no control over. And putting in long load times doesn't engage a player with the content in the game.
A player has control over how many times they re-experience the run up to the boss because they have to learn as they go. Thus the punishment and risk/reward loop. The player is in control.
I mean Nuzlocke runs in pokemon are a thing so yeah.
You could make it make sense for the most part. "Human/non-Undead mode," where you play as a person nice, brave, or stupid enough to try and cure or end the curse for others.
I'm sure people have legitimate reasons for liking it, but I really don't care for it. I found it interesting that in Nioh, especially with the dlc, they started putting shines closer and closer to the boss gates, if not right in front of them.
Just to add on: I think Dark Souls 2 probably did this best (a recurring theme)
If you want a normal Souls experience just run past them
But if you are getting frustrated you can kill an enemy N times (10? 20?) and it won't respawn anymore. This fucks with your soul memory a bit but you probably don't care if this is the route you are taking
I know there were a few boss runs (I think the chariot one, if memory serves) where I intentionally farmed specific enemies to not have to deal with them. A bit tedious but also a good example of letting people play the game their way
If you want a normal Souls experience just run past them
But if you are getting frustrated you can kill an enemy N times (10? 20?) and it won't respawn anymore. This fucks with your soul memory a bit but you probably don't care if this is the route you are taking
I know there were a few boss runs (I think the chariot one, if memory serves) where I intentionally farmed specific enemies to not have to deal with them. A bit tedious but also a good example of letting people play the game their way
OP
OP
That's the thing, repeating a simple section of gameplay doesn't engage me. It's just an autopilot task that I know like the back of my hand.
I'd prefer to sit through a loading screen of the same duration. At least then I can stretch, check my phone and give my housemate's cat a scratch behind the ears.
And the player would still be "in control" of how many times they see the post-death punishment loading screen.
I absolutely hated this design decision in 2. It felt completely condescending and basically let you partially brute force through bosses.
Absolutely not. I may fight defensively once, or twice at most, to learn its patterns, then the next attempt I go on the offensive. If it takes more than that, I'm either doing something very wrong, or it's an exceptionally hard and complex boss.
Again, if it takes more than two of your lifebars, while blocking, backpedaling and dodging, to learn all that, you are either doing something wrong, or the boss is absurdly complex AND absurdly aggressive. I have never found a single Souls boss that has taken more than that to learn (barring multiple phases, obviously).
If you circle strafe a boss, hit them any chance you have, and block / move away any time they seem to be winding up for a big attack, I guarantee you can eventually kill any Souls boss with enough attempts, no pattern learning required at all. Souls bosses are by and large extremely low on health compared to most other games.
Compared to the more traditional options of power leveling and summoning someone who has a build specifically targeting this boss?
Like most things (Dark) Souls, it is about giving you options and different ways to tackle a problem.
After playing Sekiro, I don't have a good argument for having them, and I was a relatively strong supporter of runs to bosses before. Then again, some of the boss runs in the Dark Souls II DLC probably make the best argument against them. Some are just awful, awful things.