Needs Help: Stylish Action

ChristianWS, I think a good solution to the "starting weapons and movesets" criterion would be to revise it, or, better yet, to move it to the "one or more" section instead of making it required. It's present in the overwhelming majority of Platinum's games, but my knowledge of non-Platinum stylish action is rather shallow.

I'm pretty set on having strict criteria, especially ones that are mandatory, since a clear definition of stylish action would cut down on listing games that don't qualify. Most genres on this site, and practically all of the ones whose pages aren't out of control, are clear about what makes a game fit that genre — even if it's a genre mashup or genre-busting game, the expectations are firm. Having them would help establish stylish action as a definite genre.

If the mandatory criteria prove to be too restrictive, I could revise them to be "at least three of the following four" or some such.

Regarding your comment about the order of things: the order I listed them in doesn't matter. Every "required" criterion is as vital as the other three, and every "one or more" criterion is as good a qualification as the others.

Getta, I agree that the comment you quoted doesn't seem right. I do think it's important to have criteria that allow the genre to evolve and change, but if a game isn't stylish action, then the genre's criteria shouldn't be changed to suit it.

edited 24th Feb '17 9:58:06 PM by TheOrbOfConfusion

Well, to be honest, Azure Striker Gunvolt is more of a platformer-Run-and-Gun than an action game that happens to match most of those criteria.

Getta, I'm sorry If I couldn't express myself that well, as you can see my english is pretty lackluster, what I meant to say is that the criteria defined by TheOrbOfConfusion while pretty good, would at least theoretically leave space for games that aren't really Stylish Action, like Azure Striker Gunvolt (which I haven't played, so I don't know if it really fit the criteria), and yet could leave games that ARE Stylish Action out of the list due to not filing this criteria, Transformers Devastation is without a doubt a Stylish Action, even though it doesn't fit the criteria. Nier Automata looks like it could be a Stylish Action due to its combat, but it doesn't fit the criteria (although I'm waiting to see if it really is a Stylish Action)

TheOrbOfConfusion, I wasn't clear, I'm not against the whole criteria you made, I'm against certain parts of it, I also agree that having a strict criteria is a good thing, however I fear that it might be too strict on parts that aren't as important as having a deep mechanics

Out of the 4 mandatory criteria you made, only 2 are strict about the actual mechanics, the others two while extremely common, doesn't feel to me that they should be mandatory (I will try to explaing it in a bit)

Having the "at least three of the following four" would cause some weird issues though, one of the criteria mentions that starting weapons should be suited to attaining high scores and ranks, if a game doesn't have a Ranking System(thus only having to fit 3 out of the 4 criteria), it would therefore have no way to fulfilling the other criteria about weapons, since there would be no way to attain high score

Imagine for a instant Bayonetta without Ranks, wouldn't it still be a Stylish Action? A Bayonetta without rankings would only fit 2 criteria. Or better yet: Imagine a Transformers Devastation without ranking system, see? This is why I think half of the criteria are useless: while common on the genre, they aren't exactly what makes a Stylish Action a Stylish Action

I understand that having only 2 mandatory criteria is kinda of small and would still be a problem since Mechanical Depth is kinda hard to objectively describe in words, not to mention that a line would have to be drawn on where is the least amount of depth and still be considered a Stylish Action, but I really don't know what to do

The only well defined criteria for the genre that I know of, came from the Cuhrayzee Wiki, which I kinda hate to mention, since it is a dead wiki based on a dead gaming general of 4Chan, but maybe you can have some inspiration from it: http://cuhrayzee.wikia.com/wiki/Game_Criteria

Ok, so here's some thoughts and a few questions.

If I understand the core trope/genre, it is: When stylish and over-the-top combat is driven by technical skill. Is that correct?

I think we need to step back from the specific criteria and at least agree on a common definition. Once you take away all the features(ranks, combos, weapons, etc), what is left? What is the absolute core of this trope/genre?

I agree that genres can overlap, but certain features may not apply from one genre to the next. I don't think strict criteria are needed, otherwise that overly limits the genre. The point is not the features, but the way the features express the genre.

edited 26th Feb '17 9:10:28 PM by pokedude10

A fast paced third person melee action game, that is the core.

Specifically with deep mechanics, btw. So massive Musou-style Hack and Slash games are separate from it.

I don't think 'deep' is really required all that much, many of them are not any deeper than say dynasty warriors 8.

The big difference is numbers, you don't 1 hit KO a thousand weenies like in DW games, enemies come at you in smaller numbers with more hit points.

I think having many strict requirements (other than very basic ones, like how an FPS shooter requires the game to be played in first person) makes it more of a trope than a genre. I think it's more important that the example can explain why it fits the genre rather than having a number of boxes to tick off.

Not a bad idea. Having it be a trope rather than a genre would solve the issue of genre overlap. However, I'd worry that making it a trope would lead to shoehorned examples ("X game has a fast paced section, x game requires fast-paced skill when you play it on hard, x game is ...."). When it's a genre, games are either in that genre or they aren't.

edited 28th Feb '17 10:00:11 AM by pokedude10

For genre pages, we don't usully require context at all, though. It's always good to add, but it's not necessary. On the other hand, whether a work fits a genre or not isn't usually a problem, or at least not one as severe as this thread makes it out to be, so that could be a reason to require context.

edited 1st Mar '17 4:32:25 AM by AnotherDuck

Yeah, genres are generally listed in the work's description, rather than its trope list. In part, I suspect, because genres, unlike tropes, are frequently arguable. (There are forums where you can start a multi-page, multi-day flame war simple by asking "Is Star Wars really Science Fiction? And that's a nice, broad, and generally agreed-on genre, unlike many smaller sub-genres.)

If it's a genre, then the best course of action would be to narrow down all those criteria into a single, objective sentence that discourages shoehorning.

If it's a trope, then I propose we rename it something like "Stylish Action Gameplay". Of course, Tropes Are Flexible, so this might lead to shoehorning anyway.

Well, this thing is not used like a trope would be used, right? It's a subgenre. One that is arguably kinda niche but has a few diamonds in the rough.

Yeah it is used as a sub genre to Hack and Slash outside the wiki, it is even a tag on steam.

edited 1st Mar '17 5:25:40 AM by Memers

"Third-person, single-player action that allows skilled players to be creative and stylish using deep, diverse combat mechanics."

Should we start with this?

That seems to be the ideal way

Okay, and what common aspects of the genre should replace the ones currently on the page?

This page shouldn't exist.

Not by this name anyway. Not with half of the entries not being action games to begin with.

I'm sorry for being so late.

At this point I don't think I can add much to the discussion, TheOrbOfConfusion already made pretty good points, and his previous list of common elements is good enough (I was only criticizing it due to 2 mandatory elements, the rest is pretty good)

I would try to add a obligatory criteria in the form of Skill floor and Skill Ceiling, these games have a tremendous Skill Ceiling, the difference between a new player and a skilled player in combat is far greater than in other games, usually using a great number of special techniques and a lot of cancels

I think this will do a good job of replacing the genre's description. Rather than fuss over what's mandatory and what isn't, I arranged them in rough order of importance and frequency, and put what matters in the description itself.

Spectacle fighters, also known as character action, stylish action, deep action, extreme action, and cuhrayzee games, are a sub-genre of action and action-adventure, hack-and-slash, and beat-em-up games.

In addition to the usual action goal of destroying enemies efficiently, spectacle fighters add the twist of also trying to create a visual spectacle (hence the name) through battle, making them the action genre's sandbox of sorts. Rather than by forcing the player to memorize a handful of extensive combos and techniques, spectacle fighters present the player with a vast number of open-ended, basic combat tools and allow the player to arrange them as they see fit, resulting in cutscene-level action sequences once the combat system has been mastered. Spectacle fighters have a very high skill floor and an even higher skill ceiling, usually causing new or unskilled players to frequently fail missions until they adjust to the gameplay. They often, but not always, have a scoring and ranking system that encourages skilled gameplay that uses more of what the combat mechanics have to offer; this also adds replay value to the game.

As a general rule, these games are thoroughly unrealistic, whether it's controllable gameplay or the storytelling that drives it.

Some common characteristics of spectacle fighters, in descending order of frequency and importance, are:

• Regular enemy encounters that greatly outnumber and/or outmuscle the player, designed to encourage creative and fast-paced gameplay and make unskilled and simple Leeroy Jenkins strategies unviable.
• Employing magic or advanced technology as an excuse for the game's unrealistic combat mechanics.
• Scoring and ranking systems that grade the player on variables like how much damage they took, how long the mission or fight took to complete, and a combo score calculated to reward long, uninterrupted combos that make use of diverse combat options.
• Single-player gameplay with a third-person perspective making up most of what the game has to offer.
• An energy or magic meter of some sort that is charged through regular combat and can be spent on special moves, such as powerful attacks or short-term enhanced combat capabilities.
• Moves, especially dedicated defense moves, that reward the player for perfect or close-to-perfect timing.
• Starting off players with movesets and weapons that are already suited to high combo scores, but also giving them access to optional techniques or weapons purchasable with in-game currency acquired through combat and high rankings.
• Unskippable battles making up the majority of game encounters, requiring the player to destroy all enemies to further proceed.
• Multiple-phase boss fights.
• Optional missions that do not advance the plot and challenge the player to complete special objectives or fight under unusual conditions.
• Quick-time events during cutscenes, which may or may not make use of Press X to Not Die.
• Combos that make use of at least two attacking buttons, such as light/heavy or punch/kick.

None of the "common features" actually matters. There are action games (listed in that very article) that don't have a single one of the features you listed and there are games (again from that article) that have most of the features from there and are not action games at all.

You are contorting and torturing definitions to make it fit into the bad, meaningless and artificial name "spectacle fighter" that no one uses except for one youtuber.

Stop trying to make it a thing.

I've heard the genre by the name "spectacle fighter" many times. Saying it's just one youtuber using it is Fan Myopia at best.

That's because that youtuber is popular and coined it.

My problem with that awful name is person who made it up and people who keep using it have no idea what are they talking about because they think it's about spectacle or some tortured list of "requirements" that games have to conform to be called this made-up thing.

Another problem is that this sub-genre has been called many things since it's inception: "stylish action", "deep action", "cuhrayzee" — all of these names are bad.

But introducing a NEW one and by far the worst one yet?

It's even worse than xkcd standards comic https://xkcd.com/927/

because new term that you trying to push here is even less descriptive and more confusing than previous names.

edited 21st Mar '17 10:12:06 PM by Azek

So what if it was coined by a youtuber? That still doesn't answer how or why you made up the factoid that it's only used by him. Don't make up or twist facts to suit your agenda. That's not how we do things here.

The way we solve that standards problem is that we throw up a bunch of names in a crowner, and we vote on it.

Genres are loosely defined. Works aren't all fixed into discrete categories. They're a continuum from one genre to another, with frequent overlaps, and they draw more or less from different genres. The typical example is whether Star Wars is fantasy or sci-fi. I'd argue it's a fantasy story in a sci-fi world, but there are loads of opinions about that, and that's for two of the largest and most well-known genres out there.

I've always seen this genre as brawler games that focus on your own techniques and actions more than on your enemies. As a definition, that's still fuzzy, and there's more to it, but that's what works for me.

I would be against renaming, the name was latched onto for the genre and community kinda built around that.

Its like Rogue Like in that respect.