Hot takes

[moonbits]

Gen 5 had a pretty mature plot. It was like a YA Pokemon game.

sorry I only played until Ruby, when I was 8.

 

[MasterEn]

sorry I only played until Ruby, when I was 8.

kind of hilarious that you stopped with gen 3, which started the trend of dark plotlines in pokemon with ruby and sapphire using political commentary from the 80's about a very interesting topic that was up for debate in the japanese government for it's plot.

 

[andyanajonseph]

Mega Man 5 is one of the worst Mega Man games to ever exist and Mega Man 6 is better than it in every single way.

Here, I said it.

Still better than 10 any day. That's the most overrated Mega Man game, it's literally just mash shoot and barely anything is a threat.

 

[fake-kun]

grown ups should stop giving modern pokemon any attention, it's a kids game :)

People should stop giving Pokemon any attention at all, it's a terrible franchise. : )

 

[Ravl]

People should stop giving Pokemon any attention at all, it's a terrible franchise. : )

Well yes, I'd say modern Persona is a better "baby's first rpg"

grown ups should stop giving modern pokemon any attention, it's a kids game :)

Most games are kids games

 

[Prism_Red]

Remember kids, if it's fun, regardless of it's intended market, play it.
Look at me, already got hair in my balls and I still watch grown men in spandex kung fu fighting rubber monsters every week.

 

[Michael Frank]

Remember kids, if it's fun, regardless of it's intended market, play it.
Look at me, already got hair in my balls and I still watch grown men in spandex kung fu fighting rubber monsters every week.

Basically, and also if the game is not serious, don't take things on it too seriously, what i mean it's have fun, people these days wants to get philosophical with games that don't need that kind of take, like people taking too seriously final fantasy lore, i mean yeah some serious stuff happens, but at the end of the day enjoy it, as Mei Ling said: "Be glad you have the time to play video games"

 

[PepThePerson]

Not sure it's a hot take, but I never understood this HD-2D thing JRPGs do now.

 

[Ravl]

Not sure it's a hot take, but I never understood this HD-2D thing JRPGs do now.

The public seem to love it but there's a vocal minority of people who really hate it. I also do not like it at all.

 

[hazys]

Not sure it's a hot take, but I never understood this HD-2D thing JRPGs do now.

It looks horrible. Unfortunately people simply refuse to play anything that looks "old" now. It has to look "retro indie pixel art" instead.

 

[Xdqwerty]

People who have lost game builds but don't dump them deserve hell

 

[AkiraSO4]

People who have lost game builds but don't dump them deserve hell

That's not a hot take, that's just being right.

 

[miguk]

The public seem to love it but there's a vocal minority of people who really hate it. I also do not like it at all.

I think all the complaining about it is overblown and privileged whining. If developers could have made games with the tech we have now in the past, they absolutely would have. A lot of what was done in games back in the day was workarounds to the things they actually wanted to do. Super-scalers and isometric games were attempts to do 3D when 3D couldn't be done. Cutscenes were trying to do cinematics when the tech just wasn't there. Dungeon crawlers were simulating the 3D real-time first-person gameplay the genre almost always has now. And so on.

So if these overhead-view RPGs could have done 3D to correct the odd perspectives they used to show the world of their game, they would have done it. In fact, they would have gone even further than HD-2D does, as they wouldn't have nostalgia ideologues demanding they stick to using 2D sprites for characters like they did "back in the day" because there would be no "back in the day" to compare to. And if we did get 2D sprites, they would probably be in true HD quality, not pixel art.

And yes, the public does love it, because these games are mostly fine. Are they missing a few little extras here and there? Yes, but usually nothing substantial. Are they not being 100% loyal to the original art direction? Obviously, but that's not what they were going for. Are they charging you full price for the exact same thing you already bought decades ago? No, and that's a good thing.

Look, if you bought the original game already, or you're pirating the original version, there isn't much reason to complain if you just want to play the same exact thing. A new remake isn't going to steal the original out of your hands. So if you are a real stickler for getting the same thing over and over, then you can just ignore the remake. And if you actually wanted a remake, then why complain about them doing something new with it?

And I'll note that I didn't like everything about the FF Pixel Remasters (which were made for the very type of people complaining about them), but I thought they were fine overall. They didn't have bonus dungeons, but you know what does? The PSP/GBA versions I already have. And honestly, some of them were the definitive editions: FF3 & FF6, and one could even argue for FF1 & FF5. That leaves us with only FF2 & FF4 that were missing a substantial amount of content exclusively from remakes, and yet they improved on the originals enough to make them worth a play anyways. (And yes, I know the PR series is not HD-2D, but it gets hit with the same criticisms from the same people.)

Of course, not all HD-2D games are remakes, but in those cases, why complain? Octopath Traveler did something new nobody else was doing. It was an all-new game with a new art style. The only real problems with it were the writing sucked and the last dungeon was convoluted to get to, and you can't blame those on graphics.

And yes, everyone is free to have their own aesthetic views. But it's ridiculous that some people argue that games are being "ruined" purely due to subjective reasons. Saying "It's the worst thing ever because I don't like it" is a baby's argument; a grown, educated adult commenting on the arts actually either gives substantial evidence for why something is actually horrible or admits that it's simply not perfect for them because of their taste and thus not actually horrible. It's possible to have a logical argument against something even in aesthetics, and the fact that so few ever even try doing that makes their subjective opinions have no weight.

So yes, most of us, including old-school pixel gamers, are going to enjoy the new art direction. And many of us hope they go even further in the future and quit relying on SNES/PS1-style pixel art to compromise with people who never intended to compromise in the first place. And it'll continue to sell no matter how much old men yell at clouds.

 

[moonbits]

I think it's valid to critique it's artistic interpretation.
Pixel art with depth of field and bloom just doesn't work for me

 

[Mr. Daddy]

Remember kids, if it's fun, regardless of it's intended market, play it.
Look at me, already got hair in my balls and I still watch grown men in spandex kung fu fighting rubber monsters every week.

...in?

 

[Xdqwerty]

Being able to decrease level up requirements in some ports of games counts as cheating

 

[Prism_Red]

...in?

On

 

[Xdqwerty]

On

At

 

[miguk]

I think it's valid to critique it's artistic interpretation.
Pixel art with depth of field and bloom just doesn't work for me

Yes, critique is valid. I've supported substantive critique multiple times in this forum, and still think it's fine even for an aesthetic argument. But a lot of gamers make weak, unsubstantiated critiques that end on Comic Book Guy style "worst game ever" nonsense after having said nearly nothing other than "I don't like it because I don't like it." And that's just not a good critique.

Okay, bloom can be annoying. (I, too, dislike JJ Abrams' films.) And depth of field is not always used correctly. Nonetheless, they are techniques that can be used well if done with subtly and purpose. And luckily they are not always overdone.

 

[moonbits]

Having to babysit 3D cameras has been a blessing and a curse for videogame design.

 

[Michael Frank]

Even with the Zero Project patch applied, Mega Man X3 is a painfully mediocre game that doesn't deserve to be compared to X1 and X2.

Honestly it's easy even without knowing the weaknesses of the bosses, BUT honestly the Sigma fight is kinda awesome tho.

Post automatically merged: Mar 13, 2025

YA KNOW WHAT I HATE??? In Ace Attorney, I really don't like all the spiritual mysticism BS that was added in Justice for All and stayed with the series for a very long time. It takes away from the atmosphere – what does a murder case matter in a world where ghosts exist and can be communicated with? What does investigation matter in a world where you can use a magical orb to see peoples' innermost secrets? That stuff always really bugged me, and, especially in the third game's last case, made me feel that a lot of what the characters were accomplishing was moot. Those games really needed to focus more on the hard science, not paranormal nonsense.

It's why the first game is my favourite, because it has precisely none of that "communicating with the afterworld" stuff, and why I actually prefer the Investigations series over the mainline one. (Though I've only played the first three main games, nothing after that.) I'm willing to stretch my suspension of disbelief to advanced technology or scientific research in a game about law – some of those things may not be "realistic", but at least they're believable. It's when you bring in mystical magical mumbo-jumbo that my eyes kind of glaze over. Trials and Tribulations is a great game, but I really do feel like that element of the last case dragged a lot of the experience down.

And while we're on the subject, paranormality is also what tanked the Ace Attorney/Professor Layton crossover right from the start for me. That game had an unbelievable amount of potential, and they threw it all away for some idiotic isekai plot about witches in fairyland. HOW DISAPPOINTING.

Once again Capcom pulling bullshit without any good reason, possesed tanks godammit, couldn't at least try to do cyberdemons?! or demons with guns, honestly that sounds more credible, fighting the demon/human halfling with guns WITH demons with guns.

Post automatically merged: Mar 13, 2025

DMC2 isn't so bad.

You apply the mod that changes some values in damage and combos, and your'e in for quite the experience tbh.

 

[Glimbo]

Panzer Dragoon Saga is a mediocre game. I stopped at the beginning of disc 3 (~5 hours total playtime).

The combat was interesting at first but quickly became boring. Too much enemy information is given so you never have to think about your next move.
The game is too easy which leads to things never needing to be used like items or dragon morphing. Some bits felt like padding in an already short game.
Story and characters didn't interest me.

 

[PepThePerson]

Yes, critique is valid. I've supported substantive critique multiple times in this forum, and still think it's fine even for an aesthetic argument. But a lot of gamers make weak, unsubstantiated critiques that end on Comic Book Guy style "worst game ever" nonsense after having said nearly nothing other than "I don't like it because I don't like it." And that's just not a good critique.

Okay, bloom can be annoying. (I, too, dislike JJ Abrams' films.) And depth of field is not always used correctly. Nonetheless, they are techniques that can be used well if done with subtly and purpose. And luckily they are not always overdone.

To me, it depends on how well it matches the art style. Octopath works well enough with it, since the muted colors and object layout work better with the lighting than the Dragon Quest 3 remake.

It's a subjective thing, but HD-2D works best when the lighting has the chance to show off how it looks. In Octopath it happens all the time, which looks way better to me than DQ3's "hey look the lights shine through windows or over hedges and clouds sometimes!". It looks half-assed as hell to me, despite the clear effort. It's not like Octopath doesn't have problems (the bloom is way too overwhelming sometimes), but it at least has something.

...and hey, both are good games. DQ3's a classic, and Octopath's quite alright. I just don't like the trend this is going towards of "let's put HD-2D in games not really designed for it because it looks nice, why not!" and it looking worse off than if it was a simple 2D or 3D remake. Reminds me of people going "let's put RTX in it, it'll be fiiiiine" and it looks kinda ass.

 

[_oBSOLEte_]

At this point HD-2D and all the other neoretro scams can rot in hell. It's a perversion of the indie scene. Pixel art was fine for struggling studios trying to make it. I wont give the same level of tolerance to multi-billionaire publishers just surfing on that trend to regurgitate yet another remaster AI-upscaled cashgrab.

 

[Gorse]

I don't have anything to add to this conversation besides the fact that, on the original-model Switch's screen, Octopath Traveler looked like an absolute lot of muddy shit. I genuinely think it's one of the ugliest professionally-released games I've ever played. I didn't really like the gameplay at all, either.

I think all this HD-2D diorama nonsense looks absolutely abhorrent. It was fine for one single game way back when, but the fact that it's now an art style that they're poisoning otherwise good games with is pretty revolting. I hope AI makes faux-hand-drawn art styles more prominent in the gaming industry, because I can't think of a single recent 2D JRPG that hasn't looked atrocious.