So the dodge isn't vulnerable enough? At this point it seems that your only complaints about the combat is that isn't enough like Monster Hunter. Some people may think that the improved mobility is a good thing. Also this:
The quickness of the standard attacks is balanced with how weak they are.
In order to make SS like Monster Hunter you'd have to fet rid of all the charm it's trying its best to have. I don't want a MonHan looking like SS -- that wasn't what I was trying to accomplish with my posts. However, to say combat in SS is
better than MonHan, I disagree. And by combat we're implying melee attacks, right? Either way as a game the whole purpose of interaction between the enemy and myself should be a challenge.
MonHan switches stuff up by having x boss with y enemies, then having the same boss with z enemies. It changes how you must approach the fight because you don't have a universal get-off-me move that let's you pick of enemies one-by-one. This is more down to the enemy AI, and if that's too difficult, make it so that the character has a limitation there-by forcing the player to care about what they're fighting.
Alas, I want to get away from this whole MonHan vs. SS thing because that's really not the major issue here. They both get compared as sorted as this:
- MonHan has slow, deliberate and limiting combat
- SS is fast, exciting, and full of variation of ways to attack
The problem is that I keep seeing on GAF and other sites as making this sound like SS is simply
better than MonHan. It's not that I like feeling slow or limited, or that I want SS to suddenly become harder (because I'm sure it does).
Due to playing too many games from childhood to where I am now, as I'm sure many here have, I've realised that the whole point of games such as these should be
how it challenges the player. What exactly is being challenged when you play SS? How much time you grinded for good spells? Execution? That you've learnt the enemies attack patterns and can react to them? Not any of that -- that's what MonHan challenges you on (minus execution of course).
SS challenges the player with a mechanic that while MonHan has, it can exist without. Exploiting enemy weaknesses is the whole reason why we have so many different spells. Ice, Fire etc. MonHan has this too but it's layered ontop of a rewarding combat system that can exist without them. They're focusing on two different things and I'm baffled by the comparison. If collecting items was the main deciding factor of the game's genre then nothing should matter, and we would play as many of these games as possible to collect items.
Man you guys really have boners for games with the same combat as other franchises
I personally love how the game plays ... maybe I'm just too easy to please?
I wouldn't say that. If you enjoy a game that's great -- you get it and it does something for you. It'd be like comparing fetishes... I mean taste for food... If all food had the same nutritional values...
*ahem* anyway I have 12 hours to hand in a year project I've failed to even begin, a day before I have to greet wifey back to the country. I'd love to continue this discussion in another thread but it's not the best course of action for me.
Oh and for what it's worth, PSPo2 was barren with limitations, and I enjoyed the crap out of it. I'm not an action purist or anything.
Izunadono, we get it. You don't like SS as much as MH. I enjoy SS's combat much more than MH's combat, and I'm sure there are others here who think the same. You have your opinion, and I respect that, but there's no need to keep shoving it into our faces repeatedly.
I deeply apologise. I attempted to stop myself. Just don't want to have people comparing the two. MonHan was mostly used as an example for deliberate combat rather than saying SS should be more like it.
Toto's skin was much cheaper than mine. Or maybe I just didn't get a good deal, oh well :lol
