That's not a hot take, seems like everyone's making fun of them.
I guess I don't care about character designs in a game where you're flying a ship for the actual gameplay though.
Your video game hot take(s) thread
- Thread starter Dany_the_penguin
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I guess I don't care about character designs in a game where you're flying a ship for the actual gameplay though.
Crash Bandicoot is a rollercoaster game, not a platformer, since you are being pushed and can only choose from three positions. I didn't like it much. Someone told me that it's the classic platformers translated to 3D, but it's more like the minecart levels in Donkey Kong Country translated to 3D, a game with nothing but minecart levels. Meh. Can't remember how the levels played from the side are. Probably worse than any good 2D platformer.
It is fair to look at video games as both art AND/OR product.
I was listening to the SecondWind guys on their podcast talk about the whole Mixtape nonsense and they went in the direction my brain was going: that some people look at games as art, and some like product.
If you look at it like art, you're putting games in the same mental space as movies, books, and music. They are creative expressions with a huge gap in objective portrayal and subjective experience. The same way I can like a movie and you don't, and a lot of that is because the movie spoke to me in a way that pertains to my life, or I am more open to its story and can overlook the flaws that you find in it. The same can be applied to a game.
This is how I think about it.
But you can look at games as more of an "entertainment product" because of the interactivity. I tend to look down on that kind of mentality because it feels cold and mercenary, but it also makes sense. Games are, more than other entertainment, a technology driven experience by the consumer. It's what differentiates it from passive entertainment, or even the more active entertainment like reading.
This is where the arguments over reviews come in- and I'm ignoring the obvious ragebait grifter bigot aspect of that online bullshit. If you look at two reviews for wildly different games and compare their scores and reception, you're looking at games as a product and presuming that there are objective markers for quality which may include technical performance, hours played per dollar spent, delivery of challenge, novelty of mechanics, et al.
Of course, even within this idea of "objective" rating you get subjective weighting of these factors- for example, is Ghost of Yotei a bad game because it's "just" more of Tsushima or is it a great game because it plays smooth, looks great, and continues something that was well-received (this is a rhetorical question, I'm just using recent game I played)? That depends on how one subjectively weights relatively objective properties. But it allows one to talk about it as a product.
I think it's perfectly reasonable to look at games that way, but not all the time. I also find it hard to look at a lot of games as art- not because I love "art" (bad art is also art), but because so many games are clearly cash-grab products, like a lot of mobile and gatcha stuff. But the thing with art in a commercial space is that the line isn't clear. We snobs crap on CoD and Madden but those also involve artistic application to their creation, even though they are clear mercenary profit products.
Maybe when people see a number, like a rating, their brains shift to "product evaluation mode," and react like they're a SCANTRON machine or something, I dunno.
I was listening to the SecondWind guys on their podcast talk about the whole Mixtape nonsense and they went in the direction my brain was going: that some people look at games as art, and some like product.
If you look at it like art, you're putting games in the same mental space as movies, books, and music. They are creative expressions with a huge gap in objective portrayal and subjective experience. The same way I can like a movie and you don't, and a lot of that is because the movie spoke to me in a way that pertains to my life, or I am more open to its story and can overlook the flaws that you find in it. The same can be applied to a game.
This is how I think about it.
But you can look at games as more of an "entertainment product" because of the interactivity. I tend to look down on that kind of mentality because it feels cold and mercenary, but it also makes sense. Games are, more than other entertainment, a technology driven experience by the consumer. It's what differentiates it from passive entertainment, or even the more active entertainment like reading.
This is where the arguments over reviews come in- and I'm ignoring the obvious ragebait grifter bigot aspect of that online bullshit. If you look at two reviews for wildly different games and compare their scores and reception, you're looking at games as a product and presuming that there are objective markers for quality which may include technical performance, hours played per dollar spent, delivery of challenge, novelty of mechanics, et al.
Of course, even within this idea of "objective" rating you get subjective weighting of these factors- for example, is Ghost of Yotei a bad game because it's "just" more of Tsushima or is it a great game because it plays smooth, looks great, and continues something that was well-received (this is a rhetorical question, I'm just using recent game I played)? That depends on how one subjectively weights relatively objective properties. But it allows one to talk about it as a product.
I think it's perfectly reasonable to look at games that way, but not all the time. I also find it hard to look at a lot of games as art- not because I love "art" (bad art is also art), but because so many games are clearly cash-grab products, like a lot of mobile and gatcha stuff. But the thing with art in a commercial space is that the line isn't clear. We snobs crap on CoD and Madden but those also involve artistic application to their creation, even though they are clear mercenary profit products.
Maybe when people see a number, like a rating, their brains shift to "product evaluation mode," and react like they're a SCANTRON machine or something, I dunno.
Lets say Olive Garden was given a Michelin Star. While we can all have our Ratatouille moments, it doesn't change the fact that the allure and prestige of the Michelin Star has now plummeted.
Having L takes is reputational damage. When it's popular to mock games journalists for having pleb taste or being bad at games, you have a reputation problem. A critic's opinion is worth 1,000,000x more than yours only because of that reputation. The whole thing only works if you think critics are your betters.
Considering how well Mixtape is doing on both ends and not counting the rage baiters. I wouldn't call it "bad". Just seems like another visual novel with cool visuals and aesthetics and simplified gameplay. There are people who are into that kind of thing, and there's nothing wrong with that. Fine if some don't like it, but it doesn't give me the right to insult others who enjoy it, and are minding their own business. I'm not into this either, but I don't raise to the heavens.Nor how to melt down, because people love the game or certain critics love the game. It's called, act like a grown ass adult and be mature about it. There are a bunch of other games out there.So this one little visual novel getting high reviews shouldn't bother you much.
I love this part in Ghoulif's defense of the new Resident Evil (2026) film. I got it all time stamped.
Last edited:
There is no video game equivalent of a Michelin Star. Michelin has a whole rubrick for their star system, plus a whole thing where they keep reviewing. Restaurants are not video games.
Back in the day the most prominent movie reviewers were Sikel and Ebert and their reviews could effect second-week box offices, but there's nothing even like that for games- heck they're not even anything like that for movies any more, though in hypothetically their could be.
And let's just say that if you think video game reviewers can be biased, never read a Siskel and Ebert review of a slasher film.
Last edited:
The point is if you rarely give perfect scores, it means something when you do. If Mixtape got a 9 it probably would have flown under the radar because it's not noteworthy.
You can disagree with a critic, hate them and their superior cork-sniffing ways for a minute or two, but you know your place. If you're clowning on them, it's not just a difference of opinion but a complete lack of respect.
People actually bought PS3s (which has no games btw) because the gaming press claimed TLoU was the Citizen Kane of gaming. Same story with Uncharted. For me it was Metroid Prime.
You can google how much Metacritic scores correlate with sales, and then with movies. For games, early sales make up the vast majority which is also when they have the edge on information, and 7s for hype is like getting cold water thrown on you. Marketing wouldn't be trying every edge to influence the number if the initial perception didn't have a huge impact.
Ok well IGN gave Forza Horizon 6 a 10 so we'll see if there is massive internet outrage over a perfect score for yet another vroom vroom game.
Well, duh. Their job is to tell me how smart I am for (liking/not liking) a game! But they do stupid things like expressing their opinions instead of mine!
'2D fighters whilst great for that side to side combat game don't exactly translate as well into the 3D space,' said someone in defense of Arkham's combat in a thread about that rumored Batman Beyond game.
Has anyone even tried in an intelligent way? I would do it like Streets of Rage and the other classic 2D brawlers, but with (optional) lock-on strafing. Specifically, no dodge button. I have no reason to think a 3D action game couldn't omit dodging successfully. If it's really so hard to judge spacing in 3D, a heads up display element would be a solution, but we don't know. When there is no dodge, how lightly the combatants move about the arena and their reach have to be scripted with greater care. Fighting doesn't have to be sticky anymore, doesn't need to have invincibility frames, because the simple act of moving is the evading. Attacks won't clip through the hero and they won't have to be delayed so confusingly or change direction in midair. Instead of dodging and running, I would put in both jump and crouch buttons, so that the hero can...
1. Duck under attacks like in Ninja Gaiden NES, the old Batman games for SNES/Mega Drive, Symphony of the Night, Shinobi, Aladdin and probably many other 2D action games. It's cool as hell in both games and moves, including Batman comics and TV shows, and probably sports too, but I don't watch.
2. Jump over low attacks. (The jump would obviously be a method of offense as well.)
Technically, my game would have a dodge, but it would the one from Devil May Cry and Zelda activated by jumping backwards or sideways while locked on an enemy, not a dedicated button. For the regular movement to be the intended primary method of evading, like it is in the classic 2D games, there would need to be some kind of drawback to this strafe jump. Maybe the wide space or seeing you withdraw so far gives the enemy time and confidence to recover.
A good response to my complaint about dodge buttons being in every 3D action game:
'You'll be happy to know that most of the 2D games that come out today have some kind of dodge, either a roll or a dash. Think about that. You can perfectly judge attack vectors in 2D, what do you need evasion i-frames for? Well you don't, but game "design" is just one big cargo cult at this point, so they never thought about that.'
Interesting response from the same guy about judging spacing in 3D:
'Could use shadows to judge projectile attacks, rendered in such ways to indicate the projectile's direction and height in relation to the PC and/or their shadow, such as faint shading means it's on your high line (so crouch), darker means it's coming on your low line (jump). Not realistic, but probably more immersive than a HUD. I'm using Adventure of Link as a rudimentary model, which has maybe the greatest 2D fencing system ever made* for how simple it is. Crouching lets you either evade high attacks or block low with shield, jumping evades low attacks or let's you attack their high line, etc.
'*That I can even describe it as fencing in any way, shape, or form is proof of its superiority to most other side-scrolling melee.'
Well, not every 3D action game has dodging, but when it's not dodging, it's parrying, for example Metal Gear Rising and Sekiro, which is the same thing in essence. I've never played a 3D action game in which the simple act of moving is the primary defense, like real life fighting that's so much about footwork.
Has anyone even tried in an intelligent way? I would do it like Streets of Rage and the other classic 2D brawlers, but with (optional) lock-on strafing. Specifically, no dodge button. I have no reason to think a 3D action game couldn't omit dodging successfully. If it's really so hard to judge spacing in 3D, a heads up display element would be a solution, but we don't know. When there is no dodge, how lightly the combatants move about the arena and their reach have to be scripted with greater care. Fighting doesn't have to be sticky anymore, doesn't need to have invincibility frames, because the simple act of moving is the evading. Attacks won't clip through the hero and they won't have to be delayed so confusingly or change direction in midair. Instead of dodging and running, I would put in both jump and crouch buttons, so that the hero can...
1. Duck under attacks like in Ninja Gaiden NES, the old Batman games for SNES/Mega Drive, Symphony of the Night, Shinobi, Aladdin and probably many other 2D action games. It's cool as hell in both games and moves, including Batman comics and TV shows, and probably sports too, but I don't watch.
2. Jump over low attacks. (The jump would obviously be a method of offense as well.)
Technically, my game would have a dodge, but it would the one from Devil May Cry and Zelda activated by jumping backwards or sideways while locked on an enemy, not a dedicated button. For the regular movement to be the intended primary method of evading, like it is in the classic 2D games, there would need to be some kind of drawback to this strafe jump. Maybe the wide space or seeing you withdraw so far gives the enemy time and confidence to recover.
A good response to my complaint about dodge buttons being in every 3D action game:
'You'll be happy to know that most of the 2D games that come out today have some kind of dodge, either a roll or a dash. Think about that. You can perfectly judge attack vectors in 2D, what do you need evasion i-frames for? Well you don't, but game "design" is just one big cargo cult at this point, so they never thought about that.'
Interesting response from the same guy about judging spacing in 3D:
'Could use shadows to judge projectile attacks, rendered in such ways to indicate the projectile's direction and height in relation to the PC and/or their shadow, such as faint shading means it's on your high line (so crouch), darker means it's coming on your low line (jump). Not realistic, but probably more immersive than a HUD. I'm using Adventure of Link as a rudimentary model, which has maybe the greatest 2D fencing system ever made* for how simple it is. Crouching lets you either evade high attacks or block low with shield, jumping evades low attacks or let's you attack their high line, etc.
'*That I can even describe it as fencing in any way, shape, or form is proof of its superiority to most other side-scrolling melee.'
Well, not every 3D action game has dodging, but when it's not dodging, it's parrying, for example Metal Gear Rising and Sekiro, which is the same thing in essence. I've never played a 3D action game in which the simple act of moving is the primary defense, like real life fighting that's so much about footwork.
My only main gripe with all of the updated versions of Street Fighter IV, are the removal of bonus modes like Survival and Time Attack for Combo Trials. Why remove these two? It kill the replay value for single player content, and not everyone wants to be online all the time to get their money's worth. Why not have all the above? Ironically, SFV manages to have all of these (by Season 3 and Champion Edition), plus weekly challenge updates or super bosses you can fight.
I think Siskel even told viewers to harass actors that were in movies he found offensive. He could be a hatefull little b*tch.
- Apr 1, 2009
- 16,483
- 5,080
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
My hot take is that I kinda like the new character design after thinking about it. Its like they added 20 years and took away all the shits each character used to give for their design. I mean its going to be kinda at odds with the narrative, but its funny to think of General Pepper trying to give Starfox his mission, while Fox askes Falco if this thing on his foot is new or if it was there last week.
As much as I like the upgraded versions of Street Fighter IV, the lack of any other modes kills the replay value. The vanilla version has Time Attack and Survival mode, but both got removed starting at SSFIV, and never came back. Arcade mode is nice, but they expected your time to either be in training, challenge trials, or be online all of the time. As much shit did get thrown at with SFV, it at least added many bonus modes for single player content, especially by the time of Champion Edition's release in 2020, and optional weekly challenge modes or facing super bosses. Including all of those variations of arcade mode, starting with SF1. I love how they did it, and even though the endings are all done/re-done with exclusive Udon art comic panels, it is a fair trade off. IV is still the better game at the start and now, but at least V has much more bonus content going on for it.
Another thing: I really wish SFVI brought back the transition stages, or knock out stages from SFV. Where if you KO an opponent in either corner of the screen, something humiliating would happen to them. They're basically stage fatalities without the blood and gore, but are done entertainingly or look painful enough, they go into funny awesomeness.
Another thing: I really wish SFVI brought back the transition stages, or knock out stages from SFV. Where if you KO an opponent in either corner of the screen, something humiliating would happen to them. They're basically stage fatalities without the blood and gore, but are done entertainingly or look painful enough, they go into funny awesomeness.