Coming soon - Get a detailed view of why an account is flagged as spam!
view details

This post has been de-listed

It is no longer included in search results and normal feeds (front page, hot posts, subreddit posts, etc). It remains visible only via the author's post history.

5
[not really a spoiler] The final AC6 boss fight is player versus poorly implemented user interface design :/ (and some other criticisms / acknowledgements)
Author Summary
The_Internal_ is in not really a spoiler
Post Body

So, I beat the AC6 three times over, and only have 18 missions left to get S rank on. Already S ranked all the end game bosses except the third playthrough boss. I played the crap out of Armored Core on PS1, PS2, and PSP and am a long time fan. I even bought that silly $30 link cable for my PS2 just to do arena battles against friends. That being said, I'm shocked how awful fundamental aspects of user interface implementation are in this game.

The most glaring flaw is the lack of a functional lock-on in a modern military action sci-fi arcade/sim hybrid that frequently has multiple targets bouncing around, and requires hitting the same target repeatedly to put it in a weakened state. This issue was glaringly apparent in the very first level, and the final boss on the third play through is literally the player versus the lack of a functioning target lock as the primary fight mechanic. To elaborate; since there's no functional target lock, your FCS is always pinging around to every other friggin target (foreground, background, half way on the other side of the screen, etc.), no matter how centered you keep the reticle on the boss, so it's extremely difficult to hit the boss, often resulting in running out of ammo in the second part of phase two. Since things move FAST, it further confuses and breaks immersion when the thing you're chasing is suddenly de-targeted because an enemy picking their nose 100 meters behind them and to the left somehow steals the target lock. There supposedly is a target lock function in the game as shown in the tutorial, but my buddy and I couldn't tell the difference between having it on or off until our second playthrough (having it turned on has the camera ever so slightly follow a thing if it starts moving to the edge of the screen). In an actual level, you can't tell the difference between it being toggled on or off. As in PS1 and PS2 AC games, getting and maintaining a weapons lock is critical to up your likelihood of landing a hit, so the constant (seemingly pro-active) de-targeting was a shocking decision.

The other massive U.I. omission was the lack of a map or radar, which was also used in a late game level to once again pit the player against poor U.I. decisions... as a game mechanic. Yeah, I know the little dots at the bottom of the screen show where enemies are, but a number of levels have objectives that won't show up, even if you repeatedly scan and are standing 20 feet away from them. If this was a historical action game, the omission would make sense and be justifiable. In a futuristic big stompy robot with a built in scan function / radar function, it seems absurd to not include this. I only have two degrees in media production and have studied game design a bit, but I feel that making a level based around the concept of a player having to overcome a poor user interface decision is very unusual (at best), and not at all fun. Has From Software made any statements about why the lock-on system seems to proactively swap targets that just happen to come even somewhat near what you're actively shooting at?

On the plus side, I do like how all the weapon heat levels and cooldown gauges are displayed on the reticle itself, and dig some of the mecha design. Though they decided to put kiddie gloves on their AC customization via decals and disallow sourcing anything from outside the game (until it's inevitably modded), it's nice to continue to see a fair allowance of customization in the series. I also liked the wider variety of blade options, but was sad to see the legendary Karasawa being implemented as an underwhelming plasma rifle with low ammo.

The utilization of a chain stun mechanic is also a surprising disappointment and completely breaks immersion (oh look. I'm frozen in mid air, because a few missles hit me... that makes sense?), because nothing says "fun" like smashing buttons for five seconds and not having them do anything while some peons murder you. The popular esports title DOTA2 recently reduced all stun mechanics in their game when someone realized that players hitting buttons over and over and not being able to do anything for 10 seconds while they get murdered isn't fun. Shame to see another developer ignoring that lesson.

I also find it very strange to see a significant developer make a game that doesn't support co-op playthrough in this day and age, and a massive missed opportunity for community building and fun. Even more odd, since I feel like there had been some dabbling in co-op play back on the PS2 games... over 20 years ago.

What do fellow old-school Armored Core fans think about these unusual U.I. and game choices? Non-issue, love it, hate it? What are some of your favorite or least favorite aspects of the game? Was anyone else surprised at the limited number of parts?

Author
Account Strength
80%
Account Age
7 years
Verified Email
Yes
Verified Flair
No
Total Karma
483
Link Karma
141
Comment Karma
342
Profile updated: 4 days ago
Posts updated: 2 months ago

Subreddit

Post Details

We try to extract some basic information from the post title. This is not always successful or accurate, please use your best judgement and compare these values to the post title and body for confirmation.
Posted
1 year ago