This is not a problem because it was specifically designed this way. They intended guns to be a new way to parry, not the Dark Souls parrying system with a new coat of paint. They wanted up close encounters to be especially dangerous this time around and that is how the game works now.
I understand that the game was designed with the concept of parrying with a gun in mind, but I think that the design failed in multiple critical ways. That's my entire thesis in a nutshell. Making parrying non-viable in many cases up close does make close encounters extra dangerous, but it cripples the entire concept of parrying in the process and heavily encourages players to avoid risk entirely, which harms the game.
He has the Hunter's Axe, a weapon available to the player. Some of his attacks are going to resemble what a player has despite his AI being built for being a boss fight.
I'm not sure what point you're driving at here, but fine. In the end, he's not designed to be a PVP simulator, we agree on that, right?
If you try to parry right in their face? I'm pretty sure they'll hit you out of it (or the shot just goes past them and you get hit right after). I'm not 100% sure on their behavior in this case scenario because I know trying to do that isn't the right idea so I don't do it.
That's not really what I meant; by baiting I mean coming into attack range to trick the player into parrying, or establishing a pattern that makes the player think an attack is coming that they can parry, and instead not attacking, but waiting for the parry warmup to actually strike. I'd be stunned to see tactics on that level executed by NPCs, but it's something that might make sense for a human, though it's extreme. That's what it would take for a player to be hit out of a parry warmup, outside of sheer luck.
Because it's extremely safe to do so. You either hit them out of it or they miss their shot if you are close enough.
No way, it's not safe at all. You're going to need excellent prediction or unbelievable reaction speed to hit someone in a parry warmup intentionally, and if you miss that roughly third of a second window you're eating the parry and giving the enemy a free visceral attack. If players tend to try to punish parry warmups more than cooldowns I'd be stunned. I'd like to see examples on video, my hypothesis is that this is a seriously rare occurrence.
This is complete speculation. It's comical you are now speaking for From developers on their development process.
Our knowledge of their development process is equal. We both have no direct insight. However, there are only two possibilities here: either attack timings were finalized first or animations were. Of course this could vary on a case by case basis per attack, and would be iterated on continuously throughout development, but timings have direct impact on the core of the game, where animations are more tangential. This makes finalizing timings first the logical choice. Also, creating beautiful animations is really expensive and time consuming, probably more so than altering the theory of attack timings, or even their actual execution in a test build that has basic or no animations. I think my speculation is sound.
So you want a different game, similar to multiple on the market that already exist? Gotcha.
My criticisms are aimed at Bloodborne specifically. Bloodborne is extremely similar to the Souls games, sharing basically all of their core values, but this doesn't matter to my arguments. If the Souls games didn't exist I'd still think parrying is flawed in the ways I think it is.
Risk/reward: If you trade and don't get to the enemy in time to visceral, you eat damage. If you do, you regain your health and deal damage. It is risk/reward for the parry and then you have the risk/reward of the trade. It's an acceptable design.
The only way you can be prevented from getting the visceral is if the attack you traded with knocked you down. Attacks that knock you down always will; it's not a matter of risk, it's a certainty. Recovering back into range for a riposte from knockdown (if it's even possible, I haven't tested this) is a skill that operates in a relative vacuum compared to parrying itself, and should be quite simple. Unless there's some kind of level design stopping you, you'll be able to do it consistently, and you're under no threat from the enemy you've traded with during it since they're still stunned (in theory). Besides, you're fighting a losing battle here no matter what: the vast majority of parryable attacks in Bloodborne don't even knock you down. There's no way knockdown attacks were implemented specifically to balance out trading; if they were they'd be ubiquitous. You're going to have to find a different argument to prove that From really did seriously consider trading as a mechanic in the game.
Your conclusion is nothing but speculation. Psychic parries means predicting attacks, catching animations. It's used in many games. And they can only be proven necessary if evidence is shown that just inputs can't be done on reaction.
My conclusion is supported by direct observations of the game and analysis of those observations. I've given proof that (for some attacks) just inputs can't be done on reaction many times now. About prediction, do you often find yourself predicting precisely what an enemy will do in other action games? Not memorizing patterns, but actual pure prediction? If you do, please give me some examples. However, I don't think you do, and I'll explain why.
In the Souls games and Bloodborne, and in pretty much every character action game I'm aware of, enemies are essentially enhanced random number generators. They will take different actions based on factors like range, but a great deal of what they do is determined by an internal dice roll. That's a simplification, but I'll explain further with an example. The Blood-Starved Beast has 4 attacks in its first form. Its basic AI behavior is to approach the player until it reaches a certain range, its designed attack range. At that point, it performs an internal dice roll to choose which attack it will perform from the list of 4. One of those 4 attacks is also possible to perform at a longer range from the player, so it sometimes breaks this pattern, but that basic approach-roll-attack paradigm is pretty much the basis of all character action game enemy AI. There are of course exceptions, and this is a heavy simplification, but my point here is that we're dealing with something that inherently defies prediction, it is designed to be random to a great extent. In many cases, what you may believe to be prediction is actually just playing a game of odds.
I could go much further with this argument, with your mention of "many games," and your likely response of "what about the NPC Hunters," but this is again approaching that potential ideological quagmire I mentioned way back, and would take some serious explanation and exploration of theory and even philosophy, so I'm only prepared to tackle it if you are.
I intentionally left out some parts of your post. Some were because I had already addressed them, some for... other reasons. I am also a rather busy person, which is why I can't reply often to you with posts that satisfy my personal standards for quality and clarity, but I will not tolerate insults, even if they are veiled. I have tried to argue with you in good faith, striving to provide proof with my arguments and to generally make them as sound as I can, and I would expect you to do the same.
