Hi, I'm a game dev interested in all sorts of action games but primarily shmups and beat 'em ups right now.

Working on Armed Decobot, beat 'em up/shmup hybrid atm. Was the game designer on Gunvein & Mechanical Star Astra (on hold).

This is my blog, a low-stakes space where I can sort out messy thoughts without worrying too much about verifying anything. You shouldn't trust me about statistical claims or even specific examples, in fact don't trust me about anything, take it in and think for yourself ๐Ÿ˜Ž

Most posts are general but if I'm posting about something, it probably relates to my own gamedev in one way or another.


๐Ÿ•น๏ธ My Games
boghog.itch.io/
๐ŸŽ™๏ธ Game Design Vids & Streams
www.youtube.com/@boghogSTG
โ˜ ๏ธ Small Updates + Dumb Takes
twitter.com/boghogooo

Earlier I wrote about the opportunity cost of skips in racers/platformers, and how they can diminish the extent to which games can test skill. The same logic applies to action games, most notably with regards to quick kills. It does have some interesting quirks that aren't present in movement games, though.

Quick killing enemies usually means killing them before they get to act, sometimes even at their spawn location. All action games have elements of this, and touch of death combos can be considered a different type of the same phenomenon as well.

This invalidates a lot of the more interesting enemy dynamics that can happen when their behaviors interact. The point of randomizing enemy moves and creating distinctions is to shuffle around the possible situations games can put players in and test their decision making skills. Without that, players have no reason to learn a game more holistically because it won't make them a better player.

There is a bit of a complication here however. Unlike movement platformers, action games (especially beat 'em up inspired games) rely on a high degree of randomization for their challenge. The more optimized they get in terms of score or time, the more of a factor the randomness becomes.

Usually you have a kind of averaging out effect where even if you lose time due to RNG, consistently good performance will outweigh it, especially in lengthier run-based games. But because the internal logic of the game is RNG dependent, this won't scale up very well - the better players get, the more the outcome of any given run will be dictated by luck.

This is where quick kills and touch of death combos can actually help. They may fundamentallty change which skills the games test, but they offer a more reliable and predictable layer for players to engage with which scales up very well as they get better. A more stable meta-game.

If developers go that route though, they have to make damn sure that there is a lot of skill-based variance in how quickly enemies can get killed. A beginner's quick kill should be much slower & easier than the expert's quick kill even if both ultimately kill an enemy before they get to act.

There's nothing worse than ostensibly "deep" games which are basically over once you learn all the quick kill strats, because the act of quick killing is easy and lacks depth.


You must log in to comment.

in reply to @boghog's post:

Perhaps we can take the concept of quick kills, reduce them down to one-time quick damage instead with enemies becoming much more aggressive/threatening, very similar to Ninja Gaiden 2 delimbs but keep the moveset and make it bit more controllable. Potentially amazing with high HP enemies: could create a guessing game of how much HP is left and create moments where you didn't expect to piss them off.

I guess you can just outright give enemies a 2nd life where they revive (but angrier) after a short period of time, hopefully after you've already moved onto quick killing another enemy. Castlevania red skeleton style but only once

So, ideally, getting a quick kill is like landing a highly situational TOD combo. Perhaps the go-to best example of this is Makoto's 100% stun combo in 3rd Strike. She needs to be using Super Art 2, then land a karakusa grab while she and the opponent are closer to the corner than the timer. Following that, she needs to perform a very difficult combo, involving 2 kara DPs. The fact that this combo is both situational and very difficult means that it's very rare to see people land this in matches, so it's not a strategy Makoto can lean on, rather something she can opportunistically go for on rare occasions. This keeps the game interesting and varied, and adds a special stress to particular rare situations.

Unlike say, Season 1 of DBFZ, where Cell could 100% TOD you from round start with no meter at all. Or Season 1 of Strive, where Sol Badguy could do the same thing. You'd see matches which came down to the first hit. And for a while that's kind of hype, but it gets boring when that's all the game is.

An interesting quick kill in the Souls series is tricking the Taurus Demon to jump off the bridge, because it can be very random to pull off, and it's usually faster to just fight the Taurus Demon straight-up. You can also milk the 4kings for extra damage by hitting them during their death animation, which can let you kill less than 4 kings total, as few as 2.

Though I think everyone is thankful this consistent quick kill exists for Bed of Chaos.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWOzN6PWKjQ

I think the key to making quick kills work is inconsistency of opportunity, and inconsistency of execution (difficulty). Require multiple factors to line up to enable the quick kill, and make it hard to pull off.

I'm kind of thankful that Nintendo included quick kills for the broodals in Mario Odyssey, which mostly involves skipping phases that are about waiting out projectile patterns. It's not the most dynamic thing in the world, but letting you skip waiting is pretty nice.

It's tricky cuz of how hard it is to create situational stuff in singleplayer games that doesn't just boil down to a type of RNG, so I think devs should rely on quick kill difficulty above all else. OR just try to move players away from winning once and more towards consistency - like instead of getting a stage/run score, you get a graph of performance over time which counts both successful & failed runs. So if you're not consistent, your W's will get overriden. That'll reintroduce risk vs reward back into the mix