Taking God of War for example, all the previous bullet points still apply really. You have to identify different enemies and their ranges, their windups and attacks. Some can be parried, other have to be dodge. Then you have to position yourself so that you're not running into attacks as you dodge others.
If you play the Valhalla expansion in Ragnarok, you'll see that you can't just stand still in one spot.
Even in the older games, while most fodder enemies are there to be slaughtered, they'll often have animations that break through your attacks, forcing you to dodge or parry.
In DMC, the skill aspect comes from doing all of the above while keeping your combos fresh and unbroken to get the highest style ranking.
That's a good example.
I also played all Batman Arkham games and there's layers of variation.
For example one skill is a bit simpler, it is to notice a ranged attack coming in and you dodge it.
Another is to jump over an enemy to hit them from behind.
On a more general level you may grapple away if things get too tight.
So the game design can be more focused on just dexterity and reading enemies animations or many other features and enemy variations that add new interesting choices for the player, which again may be asking for quick decisions and motor skills or it can be intentionally slow-paced and with a very forgiving counter attack mechanic for example (press "Y" to counter and eventually win :D).
I think OP is just disappointed that GoW and Hellblade are more reliant on button timing rather than strategic positioning and planning. The strategic element is there, but it's significantly overshadowed by reaction time and muscle memory. I feel the same way whenever I try to play a traditional fighting game.
There could be some strategy aspects too. You could see some "punishable moves" you see a lot in fighting games. If you don't do a proper judgment on what move you execute, you can't easily retract your action and open yourself to get counterattacked by enemies.
A lot of them there isn't always a ton of skill, but it's sometimes why the players are there. It's not my cup of tea (I'm team Soulslike), but I imagine it's more about power fantasy, set pieces and narrative. Like Dynasty Warriors you get to be a cool person mowing through entire armies. In what I've played of them (not a ton) I don't remember difficulty or dying, but that's probably not why people are buying it to begin with (again if some entries are hard I only played a few years and years ago). I can't speak to GoW but as far as I'm aware, the modern ones have gone more for the narrative as far as I'm aware, and probably cater more towards casual fans that wanna feel cool while being told a good story
Yeah, it's kind of weird. You're not wrong, either. :) Like we're totally the first gen to grow up with video games. And some of us still say "totally" and "awesome". :D
You've got the wrong idea there entirely.
Back then PCs ran DOS, not Windows, and there was no easy way to get games running on them. You had to be a bit of a hacker to get anything working properly on them.
Middle aged people would be money-rich, but time-poor, so they would have in fact chosen some more accessible entertainment. They weren't mastering their hacker skills to somehow get shitty DOS PCs to run a game. There were probably a couple - but they would be the type who did computer programming for fun, not the average boomer.
Taking God of War for example, all the previous bullet points still apply really. You have to identify different enemies and their ranges, their windups and attacks. Some can be parried, other have to be dodge. Then you have to position yourself so that you're not running into attacks as you dodge others. If you play the Valhalla expansion in Ragnarok, you'll see that you can't just stand still in one spot. Even in the older games, while most fodder enemies are there to be slaughtered, they'll often have animations that break through your attacks, forcing you to dodge or parry. In DMC, the skill aspect comes from doing all of the above while keeping your combos fresh and unbroken to get the highest style ranking.
That's a good example. I also played all Batman Arkham games and there's layers of variation. For example one skill is a bit simpler, it is to notice a ranged attack coming in and you dodge it. Another is to jump over an enemy to hit them from behind. On a more general level you may grapple away if things get too tight. So the game design can be more focused on just dexterity and reading enemies animations or many other features and enemy variations that add new interesting choices for the player, which again may be asking for quick decisions and motor skills or it can be intentionally slow-paced and with a very forgiving counter attack mechanic for example (press "Y" to counter and eventually win :D).
I think OP is just disappointed that GoW and Hellblade are more reliant on button timing rather than strategic positioning and planning. The strategic element is there, but it's significantly overshadowed by reaction time and muscle memory. I feel the same way whenever I try to play a traditional fighting game.
There could be some strategy aspects too. You could see some "punishable moves" you see a lot in fighting games. If you don't do a proper judgment on what move you execute, you can't easily retract your action and open yourself to get counterattacked by enemies.
A lot of them there isn't always a ton of skill, but it's sometimes why the players are there. It's not my cup of tea (I'm team Soulslike), but I imagine it's more about power fantasy, set pieces and narrative. Like Dynasty Warriors you get to be a cool person mowing through entire armies. In what I've played of them (not a ton) I don't remember difficulty or dying, but that's probably not why people are buying it to begin with (again if some entries are hard I only played a few years and years ago). I can't speak to GoW but as far as I'm aware, the modern ones have gone more for the narrative as far as I'm aware, and probably cater more towards casual fans that wanna feel cool while being told a good story
You mean GenX shooters. :) Boomers were born between '45 and '65. So they were between 30 and 50 when Doom shipped.
And mostly likely to have the money to have their own pcs and buy the game (/ upgrade from shareware)
You really don't understand what gaming was like then. I was there as I'm GenX. Boomers didn't play video games to the extent we did.
Nobody remembers GenX lol. Y'all didn't even get a fun name. Not trying to be mean, but genuinely, I think a lot of people are unaware GenX existed.
Yeah, it's kind of weird. You're not wrong, either. :) Like we're totally the first gen to grow up with video games. And some of us still say "totally" and "awesome". :D
ok boomer
See I'm right and you just sound silly. Ok with me. :)
You've got the wrong idea there entirely. Back then PCs ran DOS, not Windows, and there was no easy way to get games running on them. You had to be a bit of a hacker to get anything working properly on them. Middle aged people would be money-rich, but time-poor, so they would have in fact chosen some more accessible entertainment. They weren't mastering their hacker skills to somehow get shitty DOS PCs to run a game. There were probably a couple - but they would be the type who did computer programming for fun, not the average boomer.