Your video game hot take(s) thread

[Old_Hunter_77]

Here's an observation (hot take or not, I dunno)...

There is no medium in which the gap between critics and populism is bigger than video games.

I always thought it was movies- you know, arthouse stuff vs blockbusters. And I used to be into movies more and follow that industry and was kind of fascinated at the trends at how movies and movie-making was perceived.
Now that I'm focusing that attention on video games, it's pretty wild that I'm seeing what to me is the third iteration of this wild gap:

First one was sports games. I 'member back in the PS1 days already when critics and serious gamers, the kind who hate sports, made fun of Maddens being the same and not really interesting games, yet they were popular. At the time I was into both games a little and football a LOT so I thought it was funny.

Second one is mobile, of course- the most popular gaming in the world and it's barely an afterthought in our world.

And now it's open-world games... or service games... or just.. .BIG games.

The reaction to Starfield from the XBox stream is really the highlight of this "uch, 1000 planets" says all the critics. Why do they make games so big and empty?
Well... I guess people like this. Not you, not me not Yahtzee and our favorite critics, but people that don't play a million games maybe? It's just interesting, that's all.

The complete opposite is music- I remember the Pitchfork mentality of snobbery and taste-makers and "selling out." Now you're an elitist monster if you don't equate Megan Thee Stallion with Mozart- just wild opposites.

And I don't think it's just a correlation that the music industry has shrunk to practical irrelevance and games is the biggest money-maker except for maybe porn.

 

[BrawlMan]

First one was sports games. I 'member back in the PS1 days already when critics and serious gamers, the kind who hate sports, made fun of Maddens being the same and not really interesting games, yet they were popular. At the time I was into both games a little and football a LOT so I thought it was funny.

I didn't even know that went on until 2007 when some early on YT critics mentioned it. I didn't care much for Madden, but my big bro did. Though we had more fun together playing NBA Jam/Heat and Blitz.

Well... I guess people like this.

The problem is that this shit is already old hat. No Man's Sky; that is all. Even casuals will notice something. Does not matter if they play every game or not.

​

The complete opposite is music- I remember the Pitchfork mentality of snobbery and taste-makers and "selling out." Now you're an elitist monster if you don't equate Megan Thee Stallion with Mozart- just wild opposites.

And both sides of the spectrum can fuck off. I only listen to what interests me, nor am I gonna listen to the same shit over and over again, and act like everyone's tastes are trash for not listening to the same music I enjoy.

And I don't think it's just a correlation that the music industry has shrunk to practical irrelevance and games is the biggest money-maker except for maybe porn.

The music industry is a complete joke compared to 20-30 years ago. Thank God for the Internet for showing how shallow and controlling the music industry is. Spotify keeps screwing them over, and I love it. Soundcloud and YouTube are big contributors too, as it showed you did not have to sign some stupid record deal to get noticed and become famous.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Thank God for the Internet for showing how shallow and controlling the music industry is.

The internet was a giant kick in the arse for most 'legacy' media, shredded their systems of gatekeeping and selective distribution. Fuck 'em. Fuck 'em in the eyes.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Why do they make games so big and empty?

because they can't decide if they want to be a game or a toybox.

 

[Dalisclock]

The reaction to Starfield from the XBox stream is really the highlight of this "uch, 1000 planets" says all the critics. Why do they make games so big and empty?
Well... I guess people like this. Not you, not me not Yahtzee and our favorite critics, but people that don't play a million games maybe? It's just interesting, that's all.

There's definitely a group of games who think more game is better game because if you're paying $60-70 for a game, you should be getting the most game for your money, or more accurately.....hours of play. And while that's a valid viewpoint, devs have started trying to cater to that in the worst way possible of "BIG GAME! GAME THAT LASTS FOREVER! 100 HOURS OF GAMEPLAY!", especially in Open world games.

And to be fair, I'm not immune to the grandeur of a huge game space, but that's provided it feels like it's worthwhile. So Red Dead Redemption 2 feels like a massive, well realized world whereas Just Cause 2 is just a big map where you travel long distances to blow shit up.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

And to be fair, I'm not immune to the grandeur of a huge game space, but that's provided it feels like it's worthwhile.

I think it really depends what the devs do with all that game space... is it a 'living' world or just bland distance between plotpoints?

 

[thebobmaster]

The thing I've never understood about the whole "short campaigns bad because money" thing...people buy Blu-Rays or 4Ks for $20 each, with a movie running around 2 hours on average, right? By that logic, any campaign that's at least 6 hours long would be equal bang for your buck. Yet any campaign shy of 8-10 hours is considered too short.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Whatever Yahtzee's opinions are, I personally don't care and don't agree with them. I already know his over-inflated feelings on RE4. The same applies to Sterling and a few others. Greatest of all time, blah blah blah, most influential blah blah blah; I don't care. While the game has had many influences, there are a lot of problems with it. Yahtzee, RE4 isn't great, because it ignores everything that came before it. That's the dumbest reason I've ever had beforehand, and it's still dumb now. The fourth game drops plenty of references to the prior games and has a character not Leon and Ada show up, that still ties the previous Racoon City Trilogy together. You keep forgetting about freaking Wesker. The fifth game was always going to go back to Wesker. You just didn't want to accept it. I'll add another counter-argument with this video.

I think he was more talking about dropping Umbrella, and that being a good thing. Which at the time it certainly was, because after RE3 they had no idea what the hell direction to take that in. It was just getting more and more lame, trying to turn it from an evil corporation that made monsters for profit into some aristocratic cabal. There's references to Umbrella in RE4, but no attempt to expand on the lore. Same with Wesker.

And Wesker returns in RE5, but that's exactly when the 'next stage of human evolution/I am to become a God' baloney returned in full force. I honestly hope they keep Wesker out of the RE4 remake, because hot take; Wesker has always sucked, except in the first game when he was just a simple double agent. Every game since the first one that featured Wesker and tried to expand on his character was worse because of it. And I'm kinda surprised that he has such popularity in the community still, since every game he's been in since the first one has sucked; Code Veronica, RE0, RE5, Revelations 2.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

The thing I've never understood about the whole "short campaigns bad because money" thing...people buy Blu-Rays or 4Ks for $20 each, with a movie running around 2 hours on average, right? By that logic, any campaign that's at least 6 hours long would be equal bang for your buck. Yet any campaign shy of 8-10 hours is considered too short.

Your math is off a little, a low barrier of entry for movies compared to games means there's less investment needed.

 

[BrawlMan]

I think he was more talking about dropping Umbrella, and that being a good thing. Which at the time it certainly was, because after RE3 they had no idea what the hell direction to take that in. It was just getting more and more lame, trying to turn it from an evil corporation that made monsters for profit into some aristocratic cabal. There's references to Umbrella in RE4, but no attempt to expand on the lore. Same with Wesker.

He sure as hell did not make it sound that way most of the time. Which didn't matter much, because Tricell became the new Umbrella, and Spencer shows up. Though as Chris put it, Wesker and Spencer are just Umbrella's left overs. Also, Neo-Umbrella (uuugggghhhh!) shows up for one game, only to be forgotten about. Then we have Blue Umbrella, the good guy version that was never mentioned before and retconned in the story with RE7. And finally, we have the true true origin of how Spencer started Umbrella. All because of a GODDAMN BOOTY CALL!

And Wesker returns in RE5, but that's exactly when the 'next stage of human evolution/I am to become a God' baloney returned in full force. I honestly hope they keep Wesker out of the RE4 remake, because hot take; Wesker has always sucked, except in the first game when he was just a simple double agent. Every game since the first one that featured Wesker and tried to expand on his character was worse because of it. And I'm kinda surprised that he has such popularity in the community still, since every game he's been in since the first one has sucked; Code Veronica, RE0, RE5, Revelations 2.

Wesker was always dork in the first game. He was just blonde rip off of Ash from Alien. It wasn't until CV, they turned him an Agent Smith clone. I like Wesker though, and his voice actor from RE1 remake, and later his other replacement, D.C Douglas fucking nailed it. I don't know why you're this surprised about Wesker's popularity. It's not hard to see why. RE5 and Umbrella Chronicles only reinforced this. Wesker is the Dio Brando of the RE Universe. His influence can still be felt in all games post RE5. Wesker can show up in the RE4Remake (and most likely will), and I would not mind.

 

[BrawlMan]

The thing I've never understood about the whole "short campaigns bad because money" thing...people buy Blu-Rays or 4Ks for $20 each, with a movie running around 2 hours on average, right? By that logic, any campaign that's at least 6 hours long would be equal bang for your buck. Yet any campaign shy of 8-10 hours is considered too short.

Pat talked about in his podcast with Woolie, and later in his Bioshock playthrough. People who usually say that are either critics, rich people/good income with too much time or their hands, or broke motherfuckers. It's usually the broke motherfuckers that want "the bang for their buck". Just because game is 25-40+ hours long, does not automatically make it good or better. Padding is padding. And it is usually bad. Bioshock 1 suffers from this so much. A lot of 7th generation (8th gen too) games that tried be long for the wrong reasons suffer from this, and I have less reason to go back to, because time. Alien Isolation is another game that suffers from so much padding, and a lot should have been cut out. The game has like three different ending before it finally ends.

Your math is off a little, a low barrier of entry for movies compared to games means there's less investment needed.

Even with all that said: I'll take a 6-12 hour game with strong gameplay and replay value, over a 25+ hour game that gets old after 10th or 12th hour and has nothing else going for it. Or the gameplay loop gets old so fast, that the player is just ticking boxes, turning games in to work. Screw that shit. Not all short games have good replay value (looking at you Quantum Break!), but good amount of them do and rather spend my time on those.

 

[BrawlMan]

This is why the bang for your buck phrase is such a toxic mentality. I still recommend anyone in this thread watch both.

​

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Pat talked about this podcasting with Woolie and later in his Bioshock playthrough. People who usually say that are either critics, rich people/good income with too much time or their hands, or broke motherfuckers. It's usually the broke motherfuckers that want "the bang for their buck". Just because game is 25-40+ hours long, does not automatically make it good or better. Padding is padding. And it is usually bad. Bioshock 1 suffers from this so much. A lot of 7th generation (8th gen too) games that tried be long for the wrong reasons suffer from this, and I have less reason to go back to, because time. Alien Isolation is another game that suffers from so much padding, and a lot should have been cut out. The game has like three different ending before it finally ends.


Even with all that said: I'll take a 6-12 hour game with strong gameplay and replay value, over a 25+ hour game that gets old after 10th or 12th hour and has nothing else going for it. Or the gameplay loop gets old so fast, that the player is just ticking boxes, turning games in to work. Screw that shit. Not all short games have good replay value (looking at you Quantum Break!), but good amount of them and rather spend my time on those.

Oh certainly. I rarely play those large spraying games. Much prefer "short" games with a well defined goal.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

This why the bang for your buck phrase is such a toxic mentality. . I still recommend anyone in this thread watch both.

​

Now that I think about it. The mentality of "bang for your buck" probably arose and is only recently (relatively) going away because of the setting of the price of a game to one uniform price on a system. With the coming of digital distribution and rise of smaller studios and indie devs, people can price their game accordingly for the amount and quality of content they put out.

We should remember that younger gamers aren't as aware of where we came from to get to this point.

 

[BrawlMan]

Now that I think about it. The mentality of "bang for your buck" probably arose and is only recently (relatively) going away because of the setting of the price of a game to one uniform price on a system. With the coming of digital distribution and rise of smaller studios and indie devs, people can price their game accordingly for the amount and quality of content they put out.

We should remember that younger gamers aren't as aware of where we came from to get to this point.

The bang for your buck mentality hasn't even recently going away, it's just only taken different forms now. You still have people, doesn't matter if they're younger gamers or older gamers, that try to justify certain purchases or act like AAA companies are doing them a favor by scamming you for $70 now. You either have people that don't know any better, naive, stupid, ignorant, or just straight up sycophants for their corporate overlords.

I will say that with this recession, people are starting to realize that $60-$70 is not the end all to be all. Some more people are making wise decision with their gaming purchases, or just waiting for a sale. This is especially notable with fighting games now. Yet more needs to be done.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

The thing I've never understood about the whole "short campaigns bad because money" thing...people buy Blu-Rays or 4Ks for $20 each, with a movie running around 2 hours on average, right? By that logic, any campaign that's at least 6 hours long would be equal bang for your buck. Yet any campaign shy of 8-10 hours is considered too short.

Also the shorter games usually pride themselves on gameplay, so they will typically be replayed more-so than movies. Maybe some people have a lot more spare time but I’d be hard pressed to think of even one or two movies I’ve watched numerous times in any given year. Once I’ve seen it it’s like, what else is there? Maybe in a few years I’ll forget about it or get the craving to see something again.

Also there’s just too much sometimes. We live with an overload of content and things vying for our attention. Who the fuck actually has time, money or energy for it all? So we have to be increasingly picky and choosy.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Wesker was always dork in the first game. He was just blonde rip off of Ash from Alien. It wasn't until CV, they turned him an Agent Smith clone. I like Wesker though, and his voice actor from RE1 remake, and later his other replacement, D.C Douglas fucking nailed it. I don't know why you're this surprised about Wesker's popularity. It's not hard to see why. RE5 and Umbrella Chronicles only reinforced this. Wesker is the Dio Brando of the RE Universe. His influence can still be felt in all games post RE5. Wesker can show up in the RE4Remake (and most likely will), and I would not mind.

I'm okay with him being a dork, most RE characters are. Wesker just never left much of an impression as a villain, except if you were really into his rivalry with Chris, another character I never much cared for. Mr. X, Birkin, Nemesis, Lisa Trevor - these all carry so much more weight, because they were actually in the game. Even doofuses like Sadler and Salazar in RE4 were way more entertaining as dorky villains, and since they were only in one game they never wore out their welcome.

Wesker was only ever in one good Resi game (REmake), and in it he was just a guy who betrayed you. Every other appearance he was just a Matrix fanboy, which got old as fast as The Matrix did. I honestly got way more out of the rivalry between Jill and Nicolai in RE3 Remake than I ever did out of the one between Wesker and Chris.

 

[BrawlMan]

I'm okay with him being a dork, most RE characters are. Wesker just never left much of an impression as a villain, except if you were really into his rivalry with Chris, another character I never much cared for.

I never cared too much for Chris either. He's okay, but it's clear series doesn't know what to do with him at this point. Wesker is way more entertaining though.

Mr. X, Birkin, Nemesis, Lisa Trevor - these all carry so much more weight, because they were actually in the game.

All true. Though keep in mind, Birkin and Wesker are best friends. They're the reason for Lisa Trevor's misery and the killing of her family. They're both part of the problem of why the t-virus leaked, by killing their mentor Dr. Marcus. The reason why these characters have such an impact, is because they're only ones in their respective game, and are heavily involved with the ongoing plot for that specific game.

Wesker was only ever in one good Resi game (REmake), and in it he was just a guy who betrayed you. Every other appearance he was just a Matrix fanboy, which got old as fast as The Matrix did. I honestly got way more out of the rivalry between Jill and Nicolai in RE3 Remake than I ever did out of the one between Wesker and Chris.

UC is fine, and RE5 is a great game as long as you're doing co-op. CV I just straight up don't like, aside from some story stuff & the reunion of Chris and Claire. Super true on RE3 Remake. You can make the same case for the original version. It's too bad Nikolai does not come back, because he's immersing. He got what he wanted so there was no need for him to stick around with Umbrella. For further irony, in the RE3make at least, it's implied that he's working for Wesker. It always ties back to Wesker! Always!

 

[Specter Von Baren]

I'm okay with him being a dork, most RE characters are. Wesker just never left much of an impression as a villain, except if you were really into his rivalry with Chris, another character I never much cared for. Mr. X, Birkin, Nemesis, Lisa Trevor - these all carry so much more weight, because they were actually in the game. Even doofuses like Sadler and Salazar in RE4 were way more entertaining as dorky villains, and since they were only in one game they never wore out their welcome.

Wesker was only ever in one good Resi game (REmake), and in it he was just a guy who betrayed you. Every other appearance he was just a Matrix fanboy, which got old as fast as The Matrix did. I honestly got way more out of the rivalry between Jill and Nicolai in RE3 Remake than I ever did out of the one between Wesker and Chris.

I think the Ashford's are the better villains in RE. The siblings certainly leave an impression and the family adds flavor to Umbrella so it wasn't just a faceless corporation doing things seemingly for the hell of it.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

I never care too much for Chris either. He's okay, but it's clear series doesn't know what to do with him at this point. Wesker is way more entertaining though.


All true. Though keep in mind, Birkin and Wesker are best friends. They're the reason for Lisa Trevor's misery and the killing of her family. They're both part of the problem of why the t-virus leaked, by killing their mentor Dr Marcus. The reason why these characters have such an impact, because they're only there with that one game and are heavily involved with the ongoing plot for that specific game.



UC it's fine, and RE5 is great game as long as you're doing co-op. CV I just straight up don't like, aside from some story stuff & the reunion of Chris and Claire. Super true on RE3 Remake. You can make the same case for the original version. It's too bad Nikolai does not come back, because he's immersing. He got what he wanted so there was no need for him to stick around with Umbrella. For further irony, in the RE3make at least, it's implied that he's working for Wesker. It always ties back to Wesker! Always!

It really wouldn't be hard to develop Chris's, and by extension, Claire's, characters and backstories. The two both showed they were willing to go charging into dangerous places to find each other, Chris was a cop and Claire seemed to either be some kind of free spirit or went through a "bad girl" phase, there's things you can do with that that could be quite compelling if they bothered.