It's like how a lot of people just can't let go of God Hand's low score review by IGN. People just gotta accept that not everyone will see what they see in certain things or just have a different mindset. "Beat these NES platformers or I don't respect ur opinions" as if NES platformers or SHMUPs are some apex genre that only the Truest Elite Gamers can enjoy. It's just so eye-roll inducing and takes away from otherwise great discussion points.
It's not just the fact that the guy who reviewed it didnt get best em ups, it's that reviews like that are one of the reasons games now are so bland and the mechanical complexity of 80-2000s games went from being the norm to being nieche, while the modern sony exclusive became the norm
Many arcade ports or pure action games got dumped on by game sites for being "too short" "just an arcade port" "too repetitive" "not enough production values" "dated mechanics"
And as much as people say "you cant spell ignorant without IGN", their opinions have more influence on how games are made than everyone else's.
You mentioned people writing off RE4 right? Every review starts off with how the remake Finally Fixed those awful controls, what were they thinking not letting you move and shoot am I right? It's the same thing.
And now capcom is planning to remake every single mainline RE game, so now more people will have played more and even less people will know of the greatness of the OGs, and that style of game will become even deader: Prepare for the Re1 Remake-Remake reviews saying they finally fixed one of the greatest horror games ever haha
And then Capcom takes notes: now every made gets made like that, you're gonna get praised by every outlet for streamlining everything
If these mainstream reviewers didnt see the design of final fight, the punisher, castlevania or ninja gaiden or gradius as outdated relics of the past... but instead held it in high regard like Kamiya did when they made Devil May Cry and Viewtiful Joe or Mikami did when he made Re4 and Vanquish, maybe things would be different, and people wouldn't see RE4 limiting your movement as Jank
It's not just the fact that the guy who reviewed it didnt get best em ups, it's that reviews like that are one of the reasons games now are so bland and the mechanical complexity of 80-2000s games went from being the norm to being nieche, while the modern sony exclusive became the norm
EXACTLY!, this is what happened, man something that bothers me every time i see someone trying older games is the lack of patience they have for them, have you seen some people nowadays trying to play contra? they don't even try to time their jumps right, it's like J Reviews recent Castlevania IV video when he said that Castlevania IV kicked his ass in some levels...CASTLEVANIA IV! Literally the "Whip to win" game of the franchise.
Many arcade ports or pure action games got dumped on by game sites for being "too short" "just an arcade port" "too repetitive" "not enough production values" "dated mechanics"
"too repetitive"
Now that REALLY pisses me off, as if most of the best games of all time didn't have a "repetitive" loop of gameplay, just look at DOOM:
-Level Starts
-Kill Demon
-Grab ammo
-Get new gun to kill more demons
-Search for keys
-End level with the last key
And I LOVE IT, what's wrong with a gameplay loop?, that's basic game design, and with every iteration the purpose it's to improve it.
Also, people who says that games have "dated mechanics" are the same kind of people that loves yellow paint, fuck em!
You mentioned people writing off RE4 right? Every review starts off with how the remake Finally Fixed those awful controls, what were they thinking not letting you move and shoot am I right? It's the same thing.
Whoever complains about OG4 controls is a giant baby, i finished both scenarios of 2 on friday and i don't see the problem with tank controls, what i do have a complain is for normie players and their lack of hands.
And now capcom is planning to remake every single mainline RE game, so now more people will have played more and even less people will know of the greatness of the OGs, and that style of game will become even deader: Prepare for the Re1 Remake-Remake reviews saying they finally fixed one of the greatest horror games ever haha
If they do this, and sadly most likely they will, i will punch whoever loves yellow paint and dislikes tank controls until my hair recedes or becomes gray. And i'm 24.
And then Capcom takes notes: now every made gets made like that, you're gonna get praised by every outlet for streamlining everything
If these mainstream reviewers didnt see the design of final fight, the punisher, castlevania or ninja gaiden or gradius as outdated relics of the past... but instead held it in high regard like Kamiya did when they made Devil May Cry and Viewtiful Joe or Mikami did when he made Re4 and Vanquish, maybe things would be different, and people wouldn't see RE4 limiting your movement as Jank
Games should be reviewed by game designers, like iwata said in game center CX:
"the reason for difficulty is because the programmers test their games, and if they find them too easy they adjust the difficulty"
That's the reason i play the translated japanese version of castlevania 3 or those new restoration roms that people put out recently, because in older times, developers really wanted for us to feel like champions when we finished their games, now these disgusting normies don't even want that challenge anymore. Yeah some games had some rough edges, but i love them nonetheless, because those rough edges made me develop critical thinking and made me plan beforehand in every situation, and i'm glad for that.
EXACTLY!, this is what happened, man something that bothers me every time i see someone trying older games is the lack of patience they have for them, have you seen some people nowadays trying to play contra? they don't even try to time their jumps right, it's like J Reviews recent Castlevania IV video when he said that Castlevania IV kicked his ass in some levels...CASTLEVANIA IV! Literally the "Whip to win" game of the franchise.
Hahaha
I learned not to trust most yt reviewers either, they usually just a game a game once and call it a day
I remember all the reviews of RE0 saying it's so hard and convoluted..
It's really not when you know what you're doing, it is harder than the others but not by That much, it's no Nemesis. It expects you to have already played the previous games, played Remake 1 and its extra modes, and master this new gameplay twist. It ended up being one of my faves
Castlevania IV is a good showcase as to why the other games have those limitations, when you remove them the level design ended up being bland compared to the others.
It has a very good ost but the level design never PUMPED ME UP like the others..
Also I was never a fan of how it looks, cant quite put my finger as to why
Games should be reviewed by game designers, like iwata said in game center CX:
"the reason for difficulty is because the programmers test their games, and if they find them too easy they adjust the difficulty"
That's the reason i play the translated japanese version of castlevania 3 or those new restoration roms that people put out recently, because in older times, developers really wanted for us to feel like champions when we finished their games, now these disgusting normies don't even want that challenge anymore. Yeah some games had some rough edges, but i love them nonetheless, because those rough edges made me develop critical thinking and made me plan beforehand in every situation, and i'm glad for that.
Castlevania IV is a good showcase as to why the other games have those limitations, when you remove them the level design ended up being bland compared to the others.
EXACTLY!, this is what happened, man something that bothers me every time i see someone trying older games is the lack of patience they have for them, have you seen some people nowadays trying to play contra? they don't even try to time their jumps right, it's like J Reviews recent Castlevania IV video when he said that Castlevania IV kicked his ass in some levels...CASTLEVANIA IV! Literally the "Whip to win" game of the franchise.
"too repetitive"
Now that REALLY pisses me off, as if most of the best games of all time didn't have a "repetitive" loop of gameplay, just look at DOOM:
-Level Starts
-Kill Demon
-Grab ammo
-Get new gun to kill more demons
-Search for keys
-End level with the last key
And I LOVE IT, what's wrong with a gameplay loop?, that's basic game design, and with every iteration the purpose it's to improve it.
Also, people who says that games have "dated mechanics" are the same kind of people that loves yellow paint, fuck em!
The lack of patient is a big factor, a lot of people dont want to work for something and learn it, they dont have that competitive "I want to improve and overcome this, I wanna be so good I can show off!" mindset; they want an immediate hit. Thats why I use the term "passive games"
Same for the "too repetitive and short" complains; they seldom try to understand that the reason people love the arcade mentality isnt because they love hitting that punch/shoot button, but it's because they love mastering the gameplay
It's not just the fact that the guy who reviewed it didnt get best em ups, it's that reviews like that are one of the reasons games now are so bland and the mechanical complexity of 80-2000s games went from being the norm to being nieche, while the modern sony exclusive became the norm
Sorry for the essay, I'm once again guilty of being a verbose asshole.
I have never agreed with this sentiment. Do you have any idea why beat-em-ups were already a by-gone genre in the west by the time that review came out? Because most people in the industry moved on. The people who make games, the people who buy games, the people who publish games all assumed it to be an old-hat genre that is niche and "old-school".
The review did not cause the apathy towards those kinds of games, the average consumer just likes simpler games. Most people did not buy God Hand and it isn't because of an IGN review in the awkward middle-steps of the internet. The reason all but RE4 within the "Capcom Five" failed, the reason that Platinum games golden era were relatively niche compared to all contemporaries, the reason SHMUPs and beat-em-ups became a smaller, niche genre ruled by indies and small legacy studios is because /those games became niche after the arcade era/. Most people do not like them beyond a curiosity. "Oh I'm at the barcade and they have a couple shooters to plug a couple quarters into!" or "Well its on sale and people say Ikaruga is legendary so sure I'll give it a shot and boot it up for a few minutes here or there when I'm bored."
The industry started to balloon in popularity and suddenly telling a compelling story through traditional means and creating games that are intuitive to the average person picking up a controller became the goal of developers and the expectation of gamers. As technology progressed and games became far more expensive to produce in an ever-growing industry, these pre-existing wants to make games intuitive and cinematic only became more important. The middle market games of today take more time, developers and money to produce than almost any 5th or 6th gen masterpiece you can think of in an industry that is endlessly looking to lay people off or close studios they deem as redundant. Every game now competes with established live service juggernauts and social media apps like Tik Tok for their time in an economy that is in shambles.
God of War 1 sold 5 million copies and is an ok action game. Devil May Cry 3 is arguably the greatest action game ever made and sold less than 2 million. Ninja Gaiden 1 is also arguably the greatest action game ever made and sold less than a million. All of those games got above a 9 from IGN themselves. Metacritic in general scores GoW1 at 94 and the other two titles in the low 80s. This is primarily because despite being such revered and respected games, they appeal less to the average gamer who is beating a game once and then shelving it, focusing primarily on getting to the end over mastering the game. By making a game that is more hardcore or focused on a specific experience, you inevitably make your game less broadly appealing. Review score aggregates generally just echo the general mass appeal of a game, when you look at games that tend to score higher.
This is why fighting games, arena FPS and RTS games are niche in the modern era. People heavily value intuitiveness and accessibility. Doing quarter circles or remembering hotkeys and build orders is the opposite of that. This is also why gamers hate SBMM in multiplayer games. They want everything as simplified and intuitive as can be. I love that skill ceiling, I love that learning a fighting game or RTS is the same as learning how to play a new instrument or learn a new language. I don't wanna win EVO but learning a fighting game is still a blast. I don't wanna beat Flash or Bisu in Starcraft but its still fun to practice and push for a C rank on ladder. Most people don't see it that way though.
I feel like it's disrespect for games as an artform. There is this general insistence that game design is a linear timeline where games of today are seen as strictly better cause surely people back then just didn't know any better right? People overly value how intuitive and accessible modern games are. "Remake Silent Hill and classic RE because I don't want to play a fixed camera game" is an absurdly common sentiment for a reason. People want any game that doesn't fit the modern standard of design to a tee, they wanted RE4 and RE5 remade cause you can't move while aiming and would rather have traditional character control rather than tank controls. Fromsoft games are treated like these hardcore holy grails by the average player simply because they don't have modern suck-to-target melee and have basic consequences for dying or difficulty sliders.
Hell, when it comes to replayability most people think of roguelikes these days, which is a genre of games that are typically focused on relaxed low-stakes runs through games with less mechanical complexity. You tell them they're gonna do dozens if not hundreds of *insert roguelike here* runs that take them 30-45 minutes and they'll get excited and understand it is a part of the genre. But you tell them that they're gonna do dozens if not hundreds of SHMUP or beat-em-up runs that take them the same amount of time and they scoff.
We have endless data showing that if people hit a roadblock they'll likely just stop playing a game. So, when games are expensive, you value not having some weird control scheme and designing your game to be as intuitive as possible (yellow paint is a small example). Because story matters more than ever in games and if you want people to see your story you need to make sure it isn't too difficult to reach the end. When you're more focused on story and intuitiveness though you're not making a game that will peel back layers of strategy and depth for dozens if not hundreds of playthroughs. That's ok though, because you recognize that the vast majority of people will just beat a game once and move on, if they even beat the game at all.
IGN could have given God Hand a 9 and it still wouldn't have sold well enough to create a franchise. IGN could have given Spikeout for the Xbox an 8 and it would not have moved the needle. They merely reflect what the general public felt at the time. Mortal Kombat outsells every 2D fighter. God of War 1 outsold DMC3 and Ninja Gaiden combined twice over. I promise you that the gaming press does not have the power to influence sales or public perception to that degree.
Games are simply viewed as a toy/commodity people are entitled to easily understand and beat by the majority of people. Anything hardcore will inevitably have a smaller audience since it must alienate a portion of the general public and buck what is deemed "good game design" by modern standards to achieve its vision. If God Hand was a game that appealed to enough people to sell and review absurdly well to the general public, it wouldn't have been God Hand.
The reason most people say that is because it is a more tedious game with a less intuitive map design. Fixed camera tank control games are already niche (already were when that game released) so introducing the need for character swapping alongside a map that can't hold a candle to how brilliantly designed the Spencer Mansion was and of course people won't like it as much. The fact its combat is also way less forgiving and skillful (there's a reason the no-damage community hates that game) and I get why it hits the bottom of most people's RE rankings. I agree that its a good game, I rly do like it myself, but I understand why someone would be disappointed.
Ultimately, I think framing a disagreement you have with the public as a reason "to not trust them" is silly. People have opinions, just because you don't agree doesn't mean they're wrong or lying or whatever. Obviously don't look for recommendations from someone you tend to disagree with, but sometimes people who dislike games I love or love games I dislike have really interesting perspectives.
Yeah, he has a real Dunning-Kruger effect going on when it comes to fighting games in particular. When he talks about SHMUPs he is clearly way more knowledgeable than me but then he talks about fighting games - which I know rather well - and it is clear he's mostly talking out of his ass when he tries to go high level with the discussion. This is fine to an extent cause I actually value the opinion of someone casual with a genre, but he always tries to position himself as an authoritative expert and his fanbase clearly agrees with whatever he says cause they want the "hardcore cred" so it can get annoying when he gets in over his head.
Still the dude is generally brilliant, I love how well-spoken he is and he has a lot of valuable insight into design philosophy that I love. He just lets his hater streak shine a little to bright for my taste and gets a little out of his depth sometimes lol
Ok then, fair enough, not all of the members of the newer audiences are impatient and shelf-indulgent, without wanting real challenge, but like the cows I've raised as a farmer, I've noticed the trend of cattle mindset in recent years, meaning that if a bad opinion becomes popular, it becomes the norm, and that is affecting videogames, and other media these days. And right now it's clashing between good and bad design.
The reason most people say that is because it is a more tedious game with a less intuitive map design. Fixed camera tank control games are already niche (already were when that game released) so introducing the need for character swapping alongside a map that can't hold a candle to how brilliantly designed the Spencer Mansion was and of course people won't like it as much. The fact its combat is also way less forgiving and skillful (there's a reason the no-damage community hates that game) and I get why it hits the bottom of most people's RE rankings. I agree that its a good game, I rly do like it myself, but I understand why someone would be disappointed.
Ultimately, I think framing a disagreement you have with the public as a reason "to not trust them" is silly. People have opinions, just because you don't agree doesn't mean they're wrong or lying or whatever. Obviously don't look for recommendations from someone you tend to disagree with, but sometimes people who dislike games I love or love games I dislike have really interesting perspectives.
I said I dont trust them because more often than not when I went to play stuff by myself I found most complains felt like the reviewers just played it once, most of the frustrating aspects they complained about were either overblown or barely a thing if you pay attention to what you're doing;
Another example that comes to mind is how much every rockman 1 review said it was So Hard. And yeah its got a bunch of tricky sections but it's nothing you cant get over in like an afternoon..you dont even have to do most of the boss fights if you get the right weapon anyway
And in general, they rarely go in depth enough with the gameplay talk. I remember when Bayonetta 2 came out only a handful of channels who knew their stuff complained about umbran climax trivializing the combat, and how they removed being able to continue your air combo once you hit the ground; or how the removal of item penalty ruined the ranking or that you cannot play the game without Witch Time anymore.
You gotta look for those handful of channels of game freaks who really sweat about this stuff
If someone disagrees with me that's fine, if they articulate it well I like listening to it!
You mentioned Electric Underground, that's a channel I love and I heavily disagrees with Mark on several things; but it can be refreshing to hear perspectives that clash a lot with mine.
For example he thinks cutscenes as a whole almost dont belong in videogames, and they're like a Band-aid to the gameplay; because "game stories are bad anyway" and scoffed at the idea of games having movie directors or like a separate studio for it
I really dont think so, to me a good story in a game is one that compliments the gameplay; the most straightforward example is the scene before and after Vergil 1 in dmc3 amps me up so much I almost never skip it. And I also care way more about mood and atmosphere than him.
To me having a strong introduction to a boss is like how in metal slug bosses are introduced with that bombastic music and spectacular spritework; it sets a presence, if they just showed up it wouldnt be the same would it? And the post-defeat is the same as an enemy exploding, it adds to the "fuck yeah I did it"
And they can also be seen as Rewards for getting through the game, or for alternate playstyles. Games with multiple endings do just that.
Also he just disregards almost jrps as a whole because you can grind everything; yeah you Can, but being forced to grind because you cant do it is a form of punishment. Being forced to play boringly because you're not learning the gameplay very is kinda like beating dmc3 by spamming items, yeah you can Do it but you know you're playing lame.
And you can find interesting ways to make grinder harder, like the Resentment mechanic in Shadow Hearts or the time limit in Valkyrie Profile
But even if enjoy that hes got such strong stances, it's way more interesting to listen to and it can give me new perspectives. He sure motivated me to 1cc Gradius, when before I never paid much thought to 80s shmups; and he sure made me appreciate RE5 and 6 mercenaries more, when I never tried thinking about it like a beat em. He had an interesting perspective I never thought about, because at the time he knew way more about 80s\90s beat em up than me, who just credit spammed on mame
Sorry for the essay, I'm once again guilty of being a verbose asshole.
I have never agreed with this sentiment. Do you have any idea why beat-em-ups were already a by-gone genre in the west by the time that review came out? Because most people in the industry moved on. The people who make games, the people who buy games, the people who publish games all assumed it to be an old-hat genre that is niche and "old-school".
I agree to an extent; there were still a bunch of 3d beat em ups around 04-06, Urban Reigns being the most high profile one that comes to mind, so I dont think game studios as a whole wrote the genre off yet. I always hated this idea of genres becoming "Things of the past" until they're not, it's so arbitrary.
I dont think the IGN review singlehandedly made God Hand flop, iirc Mikami said he didnt expect to sell over 20.000 copies and that he only made it for himself.
I was more talkling about how big budget games now seem to be made to be 100 percent reviewer friendly. Leaving that strong impression and not much besides that.
I dont think it helps that mid budget games like Wanted Dead and Slitterhead get absolutely blasted for not meeting IGNs expectations; I agree the sites reflect mainstream taste for the most part and thats just my problem. Playing a bunch of modern games felt like the guys making read the common complains I read around 2009-14 and went point for point to "fix everything"
I feel like it's disrespect for games as an artform. There is this general insistence that game design is a linear timeline where games of today are seen as strictly better cause surely people back then just didn't know any better right? People overly value how intuitive and accessible modern games are. "Remake Silent Hill and classic RE because I don't want to play a fixed camera game" is an absurdly common sentiment for a reason. People want any game that doesn't fit the modern standard of design to a tee, they wanted RE4 and RE5 remade cause you can't move while aiming and would rather have traditional character control rather than tank controls. Fromsoft games are treated like these hardcore holy grails by the average player simply because they don't have modern suck-to-target melee and have basic consequences for dying or difficulty sliders.
We have endless data showing that if people hit a roadblock they'll likely just stop playing a game. So, when games are expensive, you value not having some weird control scheme and designing your game to be as intuitive as possible (yellow paint is a small example). Because story matters more than ever in games and if you want people to see your story you need to make sure it isn't too difficult to reach the end. When you're more focused on story and intuitiveness though you're not making a game that will peel back layers of strategy and depth for dozens if not hundreds of playthroughs. That's ok though, because you recognize that the vast majority of people will just beat a game once and move on, if they even beat the game at all.
IGN could have given God Hand a 9 and it still wouldn't have sold well enough to create a franchise. IGN could have given Spikeout for the Xbox an 8 and it would not have moved the needle. They merely reflect what the general public felt at the time. Mortal Kombat outsells every 2D fighter. God of War 1 outsold DMC3 and Ninja Gaiden combined twice over. I promise you that the gaming press does not have the power to influence sales or public perception to that degree.
Games are simply viewed as a toy/commodity people are entitled to easily understand and beat by the majority of people. Anything hardcore will inevitably have a smaller audience since it must alienate a portion of the general public and buck what is deemed "good game design" by modern standards to achieve its vision. If God Hand was a game that appealed to enough people to sell and review absurdly well to the general public, it wouldn't have been God Hand.
I agree with all of that pretty much hahaha
Especially the distain for the mentality that game design is a Straight Line, and that early developers just didnt know any better until we finally saw the light of everything controlling and playing the same
Aside from a small disagreement about the influence of sites you pretty much took my thoughts on why games are so passive and streamlined, and worded them so nicely! I do think the number 1 culprit is gaming going mainstream to the point games cost 80 milion dollars or more
But really the points about disrespecting games as an artform were so good
To this day, even indies and low budget, don't understand this; if you played football and you could just grab the ball with your hand, the whole skill aspect of the game is dead. Limitations is the mother of invention. And limitations also breeds player expression, because if you have every option you just end up reducing the game to 1 or 2 strategies that are better than everything else
Just to add onto this point with my own example...
Gravity Circuit - a game that aims to be a spiritual successor of sorts to the Mega Man Zero series. I played this game right after marathoning all the MMZ games back-to-back and for the first couple of levels I thought it was a worthy successor - I really vibed with it. But then I unlocked reliable defensive options...
The only defensive option in MMZ is the boomerang shield being able to block projectiles when held and it's not exactly very reliable (maybe the phasing dash item too but that has it's own drawbacks). Defense is not something you can work a whole playthrough around. In MMZ you're fast and deal high damage but you're fragile af so it's all about evasion and aggression. The devs were obviously very particular about what defensive options were available to the player as each option for defense they added would naturally undercut the need for aggressive play. The Gravity Circuit devs on the other hand, added equippables that give you extended I-frames after taking a hit and a way to recover health. Might seem like a harmless or even healthy inclusion that adds a little more diversity to the play styles available, but from then onward in my playthrough, I went from firguring out boss patterns, to just straight up wailing on each boss with absolutely no regard for my own health because with some good timing, the bosses could not possibly drain my HP bar before I drained theirs. The roles reversed and I was the boss character.
The boss fights were everything to me in MMZ - they're obviously a massive part of the mega man series in general but the ones in MMZ had a certain presence and style that really made the experience incredible for me. I'd literally make save states outside of the boss rooms, not even to save scum, but so I could easily fight them a bunch of times over and over before moving on. Not every single one was challenging, but they were all demanding in a way that's distinctly MMZ, and a big part of that was the limitations they placed upon the player. I don't think this is something the devs of GC ever really understood or took to heart and so they undercut the entire experience of their game in an effort to give it broader appeal, and for what? Generic recovery and I-frame extending abilities that you could find in any old ARPG.
About the video that started this thread though...
I really agree with the comment about the retro gaming community not being a community at all. Been playing fighting games my whole life and hearing people say "the fighting game community" vaguely referring to 'everyone that plays or watches any kind of conventional fighting game and talks about it online' still hits me like nails scrapping on chalk. Just think about how the word community is supposed to be used. Maybe not all of you agree but even calling just this site alone a "community", is a blatant misuse of that word. Don't get me wrong, I love the camaraderie here, but community is misleading
I agree to an extent; there were still a bunch of 3d beat em ups around 04-06, Urban Reigns being the most high profile one that comes to mind, so I dont think game studios as a whole wrote the genre off yet. I always hated this idea of genres becoming "Things of the past" until they're not, it's so arbitrary.
I think the answer to this is that Japan simply respected and appreciated the old school design they pioneered far longer than others. Most of those games were made by or at least commissioned by Japanese companies and a lot of them - like Spikeout - reviewed and sold better in JP than in the west, broadly speaking. It's like that one Phil Fish rant during the Q&A in the early 2010s where he went on a mini-rant about Japan "needs to get with the times" cause they used to make dope games and now they make slop. Irony in that is yes, the JP industry was not doing great at that time on home consoles but that was largely because many of them - most notoriously Capcom - were trying to chase western design trends since the western industry exploded in popularity while JP games started to wane in sales.
The fact that arcades lasted decades longer in Japan than in the west (RIP to the JP scene tho) speaks volumes to how much the culture over there stood behind more hardcore/old school design tenets. There's also just a reason most games people view as the best of the best hardcore games also came from there.
I dont think it helps that mid budget games like Wanted Dead and Slitterhead get absolutely blasted for not meeting IGNs expectations; I agree the sites reflect mainstream taste for the most part and thats just my problem. Playing a bunch of modern games felt like the guys making read the common complains I read around 2009-14 and went point for point to "fix everything"
It sucks living in what feels like a culturally vapid era. Everyone just asking for old games to get modernized, begging for endless sequels from old franchises even if no one at the company wants to make them anymore and praising the most middling slop cause despite being a middling game, it has a good story attached as if those are mutually exclusive attributes. The average joe has such a boring, vapid view of the industry and what it is capable of and its sad. People look to video games as something to turn to when they wanna turn their brain off, it's depressing and negatively impacts every style of game from casual to hardcore. I guess it means I get to dive into my backlog more and just enjoy the few new games that do buck modernity a bit more. Blegh...
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
