(and in more ways than just combat wise)
is not accurately advertised,
is not accurately reported on,
is not accurately implemented
now reasons:
Personally speaking, being in early access, is not only understandable but expected. Major issue here is, unfortunately not everyone thinks this way and will reflect in their expectations as well as feedback.
Factually speaking, game has been advertised, comparing it to certain games and genres, and with the word “precision” being loosely thrown around as well. While the current combat mechanics has a good base and is very promising, it lacks accuracy either by technical issues (ti) or certain design decisions (dd). (dd) example: contextual inputs, namely jumping/climbing/vaulting. Current game is not accurate regarding this, and if not working perfectly becomes the polar opposite to precision. The average player will feel a dissonance and subsequently frustration. (ti) example: micro stutters, precision combat suffers greatly particularly because those can be perceived as input lag as well even if technically there isn’t latency issues. Another accuracy issue, no one seems to be talking about: communication… yes, for one comparison is a great way to convey ideas, but it leads to inaccuracies, take the example of the most common reference, FromSoft’s souls series, being “inspired” by it tells us some will be borrowed and some will be extrapolated from it, but is of utmost importance to flash out exactly in which ways it differs, and if you can’t better not mention it at all (if players feel similarities they WILL comment on that, but there’s implied promise from the studio)… another inaccuracy, game not playing as advertised, take backstabbing for example, is VERY inconsistent (inaccurate) even early on when game is actively teaching its mechanics. Is fine to ask precision from the players, as long as you deliver on the accuracy in the mechanics as well as translation of inputs. And even if due to the nature of early access later/additional content is not ready (accurate) yet, if very important at least a portion is working properly as advertised, preferably the starting area, for at least some of the enemies (the tutorial one is a must and goes without saying LOL).
Now, we players have no real insight on the inner workings of either the game nor the studio, but we can infer some and speculate upon, and more importantly irregardless any of that we still can talk about the results very objectively. I’ll give an example of something few people can put into words but tell a lot about inaccuracies: in-game interactable items! NRftW requires unreasonably precise positioning when interacting w/ chests or town NPCs, but why? is this a “hidden” system designed to teach players about correct positioning during interactions? angle and distance are objectively the way to measure precision during combat, and the game behaves consistently thought then is great. It doesn’t currently, but also if true shouldn’t be “hidden”. Logically I can assume no such system has been devised much less implemented and the more likely assumption is that interaction between game objects is handled by the game engine consistently across the gameplay and the same level of precision is being required regardless of it being a loot box or an enemy.
WAIT! Takashi, why does this even matter??? am glad you asked, well, cuz from a design perspective ‘precision’ implies granularity of control and if the game handles most things grouped together (and not well, I might add) even tho they should be separate (arguably) it will incur in inaccuracies. Static Chests behave completely differently to Dynamic Foe NPCs XD
It “tells” me the there’s dissonance between conceptual precision vs realized execution.
DISCLAIMER
For those who are about to enter… ah… yap at me: I’ve played since EA launched (about 100 hours now), and have dwelled in the forums long enough to have a “feel” for the community, am an average player not really a mad-skills-soulsgamesslayer-pro-gamer-streamer, but I hold my own… To me NRftW is not particularly difficult, but also perceive difficulty as very subjective… the critique here is OBJECTIVE tho, and factually driven. Game is visually and thematically very appealing to me, BUT gameplay is king and while this might be arguably subjective on an individual level, is very much objective for video games in general. Gameplay here is promising, but combat is not there yet (other aspects too, but ‘priority focus’). Skilled players might be able find workarounds and live along otherwise broken or bad implemented mechanics, this doesn’t turn bad concept/design/execution into good ones.
For those who agree w/ me, agree away, always welcomed XD
SUGGESTIONS
to them devs (Mahler are you reading this? LOL)
Additional content is exciting, to devs and players alike, but proving you can deliver on promises is paramount even more than communication since it can be categorized and “show don’t tell,” but yeah clear and ‘precise’ communication is the second priority (or should be LOL). Just try and patch the most disrupting technical issues along ironing out the fundamental mechanics that translate the ‘vision’ even if for just a slice of what is there…
Add freaking multiplayer already! Yes, ‘when is ready’ is generally a good policy, but when it comes to this, it’s literally about players’ interactions. Early feedback is BETTER than having it as close to done in this particular case, much more so since it WILL affect core gameplay mechanics and players will have a very different perspective than the dev team, I guarantee, since is true for everything else as well… XD
While ORI is a great achievement and very lauded, this is not that game. Different genre, different scope, different expectations from players (i.e. being very good at making Marios didn’t guarantee a very good Zelda, is all I’m saying). If this is realized players will come! (alternatively, going viral is a great way to sell more, BUT very difficult to pull off purposefully, and more importantly, viral does not equal good)