How hard will this game make me rage, Yea Forums? For context...

>Because the game did something other action games don't dare to do: It moved away from the limited idea that you can only deal with enemies by staying passive and waiting to dodge their attacks
Have you ever heard of dodge offset?

That means you were already doing something and being proactive, not just holding down the block button.

Play Black first you niggerfaggot

Is it necessary to beat the game? Everything in Bayonetta is heavily telegraphed from what I remember.

Master Ninja vs Ultimate Ninja, which harder or the same?

Don't worry, Ninja gaiden is for fucking scrubs
Try Monster Hunter if you want the real challenge

but both games are heavily different you retard

You claimed that no other action game dared to remove the limitation of staying passive, which is bullshit, and Bayoneeta having enemies with clear telegraphed attacks unlike NG gives it better enemy design, and you'll certainly need to use dodge offset in infinite climax

"Clearly" telegraphed attacks are not necessarily a good thing, they're just basic. In Ninja Gaiden 2, if you jump right next to an enemy ninja he will instantly try to grab you. So you have to space your instant UTs properly. That not telegraphed, but you can expect it to happen. That's not bad enemy design, that's actually awesome and dynamic. It means you have to look two steps ahead instead of purely playing a reactive game. It's like in a fighting game where you don't want to stay close to certain characters.

>That means you were already doing something and being proactive

What's so proactive about figuring out which moves have the biggest safety net, and then just exploiting the shit out of them? NG2 has so many fucking useless attacks you barely ever get the chance to use because lol punished immediately.

>"Clearly" telegraphed attacks are not necessarily a good thing
Yes they are, they give a fair fight and still be engaging, and it's weird that you pretend as if you'll be fighting one enemy at a time. Heads up, you won't. You'll have to constantly dodge away from incoming attacks from different enemies and directions. A fuck you bomb out of nowhere is not fun. And isn't fair either.

Which attacks are useless? If anything your moves are all much more powerful than in the first Ninja Gaiden. Guillotine throw, Flying Shallow, Ninpo, Wind Run/Path, Projectile weapons, basic attacks that now delimb etc. these are all much more powerful in NG2 than in NGB. It's true you can't just mash out combos and expect to win though.

Also it's not "exploiting" moves. You are just now actually forced to use them.

You definitely want to play the original NG first or you'll get curbstomped. Black is best, Sigma is acceptable.

>Which attacks are useless?

A better question is which attacks aren't? You want the shortest strings that leaves you open as little as possible and delimbs as quickly as possible. Attacks like Inzuma drop which gets you off the ground is also good. Use UT and OT when in danger to protect yourself as much as possible.

I already gave you an example of where an attack isn't clearly telegraphed but still fair.

Clearly telegraphed attacks are mostly just boring. In NGB, you have these ogre characters with clubs that all have clearly avoidable attacks, consequently they are one the easiest and boring enemies to fight. Other enemies that will grab you if stay passive and hold down block and are much more fun to fight even already in the first game.

You're simply too stuck up on primitive action game principles where everything is based on playing a reactive "fair" game instead of pro-active and pre-emptive one.

I already gave you a list of attacks that are useful.

Ludwig is a bad fight, people just like its cutscene, I expect you'll at least have more fun in this game

NG2 is brutal. You should play NGB first, but both games will kick your ass. Just remember when you're playing that you have a block button that's actually useful, and that using healing items is okay, and you'll get through it.

>I already gave you a list of attacks that are useful.

Good, then you already know which aren't.

uh ok...

Hey, you said it yourself, in NG2 you have to be resourceful, otherwise you die.

Either a move in NG2 is worth using, or it goes straight in the garbage. There's no in-between thanks to the enemy design.

desu this obsession with "fairness" and obnoxiously clear telegraphs/defensive play is a distinctly modern mentality rather than primitive. If you look at 2D arcade beat em ups, virtually none of them held your hand like this, you're either controlling enemies and making them your bitch or you're getting surrounded and punched to death. There was almost none of that gay "lemme stand around until an enemy attacks" shit.

>I already gave you an example of where an attack isn't clearly telegraphed but still fair.
And is just a grab something that you'd be expecting when an enemy is near you the Same as any attack in every fucking action game, it isn't "telegraphed" but it is clearly hinted at. And that doesnt nullify all the other shit enemy attacks the game has
>Clearly telegraphed attacks are mostly just boring
You say this, but you clearly have never played Bayonetta in infinite climax, enemies move faster and are more aggressive, and witch time is disabled.
And the game design isn't "primitive", there's no such thing. There's either good design or bad design.

its not like souls or nioh, it's actually fun

if you don't want to rage, avoid the hardest difficulty as enemies are just super sponges and dodge a ton...just makes the game tedious and fights last longer

>If you look at 2D arcade beat em ups, virtually none of them held your hand like this
Yes, because they were literally designed to make people spend more money. Which was fucking gay and stupid.

Can you think of a single use for the lunar's regular ET? 360 ET and UT are amazing, regular UT has that great final fire sweep for crowd clearing, but the regular ET can't even delimb a regular enemy

No they weren't, first and foremost they were designed to be fun, challenging games that can be mastered with practice, because that happens to be the most efficient way to make money in a pay-to-play environment. If they were just made to rob people of their money, nobody would play them past the first credit.

>arcade games weren't designed around being hard just to make some more money
Are you retarded? Even Kamiya the arcade fanboy acknowledges the fact that arcades were hard to have players pay more

Did you even THINK about what you're saying for a second, and how it would work in practice? It's easy to make a game hard, but if you just make a game hard without respecting the player or making it fun, people will put 1 coin into it and never come back again, that's a pants on head retarded business model. Arcade games aren't just 1 thing either, there are easy arcade games and hard arcade games. There's some arcade games that you can 1cc on your first try. What, you think the developers just forgot to "put challenge in" before they shipped them? If Kamiya said what you're implying then he's just being a retard.

>No they weren't, first and foremost they were designed to be fun

It's cute that you think this. They were called "quarter munchers" for a reason. History has simply forgotten about all the shitty arcade games so the era seems greater than it actually was.

II was imo the most fun ninja gaiden but it also had a lot of bullshit that Black did not.

One thing II did that Black did not, was me finding myself stuck at parts without a single healing potion. So git gud ineed.

>filtered me for over a month
kek always surprises me how many people suck at vidya here.

Are you not aware of how to keep people paying? The games obviously needed to be engaging and alluring. They have to start simple but hard to finish because otherwise people wouldn't put more money on it. And that means adding all sorts of bullshit designs to make it hard to beat, but is still possible.

In my experience only americans call them that because they had deep pockets and would rather drop coins instead of learning how to play, in eastern europe and japan people had to git gud and get a decent amount of value per coin. Do you really think decades of success and innovations in game design that are still all used to this day have come from some shitty gambling like scheme? Dumb cunt.

The design principles they used are almost all exactly the same as games use nowadays, that is slow escalation of challenges, iteration on stuff you've already encountered, telegraphing of threats, and so on. Especially in the case of beat 'em ups, you can see interviews of Final Fight developers where they talked about the reasoning for introducing all enemy types so early on, it's so that players know what to expect in the later stages and don't get caught off guard.

>game design that are still all used to this day
And what game design are we referring to here?

> still no PC port

FUCK YOU ITAGAKI YOU PIZZA FACED GOOK, JUST GIVE ME SOME NINJA GAIDEN ON PC AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Attached: My+personal+favorite+so+far+_d8cf0235f6ed05b529db09ef69c18ea1.jpg (444x419, 35K)

All that is great, but that doesnt mean arcades didn't target the players wallets heads on. Games were good because competition against other games existed and they needed to make a game better than the other companies game and so on

See :
Once arcade games started introducing progression with games like Xevious developers started giving more thought to how challenges would be introduced, Xevious itself not only had gradual build up of challenges but also dynamic difficulty where the enemy spawns would become more aggressive over time, which was seen in most games after it. Gradius popularized upgrade systems for action games, almost all of the games introduced enemy types quickly and only then combined them in different ways to create new challenges (like the Final Fight example I mentioned but there's others), the devs put ways to earn extra lives and resources into games to help you out, they had difficulty modes that changed the games including enemy placement/AI, checkpoints, they used things like memorization based gameplay and minor luck elements to keep people from getting discouraged. I don't know why you'd even doubt this for a second, it's only logical that the biggest industry of a time when games were fairly new would pretty much write the book on game design that others would follow.

That fierce competition and desire to make good games was facilitated by the format itself. The mobile market is competitive atm, but there's nothing but trash there because the format only encourages devs to produce trash and figure out better ways to exploit idiots. On the arcades ultimately the best way to make money wasn't to just make a hard game, it was to make a good game that gives players reasons to keep coming back. Devs even avoided increasing difficulty oftentimes, or changed their design mentality to make it more fun for players. For example they would keep random elements to a minimum and make games about memorization so that players who don't have good reflexes and dexterity could still learn and play well eventually. And obviously some games didn't rely on challenge but rather the spectacle of it all. Better than you coughing up 60 bucks upfront because of pre release hype.

They also helped with idea of Microttansaction, but whatever. No one is saying Arcades were shit with brainless game design, otherwise they won't be able to gain shit. They had good game design as long as having bad game design.

They didn't, developers tried to push that shit even back then with Double Dragon 3 but it was immediately rejected by the players and never tried again. Pay to play is very different than pay to win. Current microtransactions are the byproduct of modern game design brought about by the popularization of saving features, and it's partly inspired by rpg's. The whole idea is to create your account, and then make you invest in it increasing a feeling of ownership which can then be exploited for further profits. This wasn't possible in the arcades due to tech restrictions, though modern arcade games like Initial D have started using this shit in an attempt to catch up with console/phone games.

>but there's nothing but trash there
There are some pretty good mobile games though...