As an aside to the above, I think it would be really cool if actor Chris Evans played outlaw Chris Evans in a western someday.
Would need to grow out the beard more though.
Your video game hot take(s) thread
- Thread starter Dany_the_penguin
- Start date
Would need to grow out the beard more though.
Does this also apply to old school Doom style shooters?
Because, yeah, the game is totally different when there's lots of mid-tier enemies that take a lot of killing, as opposed to something you tap the fire button once at and look for something else. But dunno if it's necessarily worse.
I dunno I don't really play FPS games and shooters like that. I did play OG Doom but that was literally in the last century.
There's a Doom YouTuber I watch who likes to call Barons of Hell "big Imps".
The smug Elden Ring circle jerking continues throughout the gaming critic industry as FromSoftware brags about selling 20 million copies.
Here is a Kotaku headline: "Elden Ring Sells 20 Million Copies, Makes Excellent Point
Not everything has to squeeze us for all we're worth"
And it was the topic of last night's Breakout.
Take that AAA, a tRuE gAmE sells, hahah... it's insufferable.
Yes I know all about microstransactions and live service and why they're bad and hooray for Elden Ring not having those. Hooray for me for not murdering or raping anyone today, also... I mean is this where we are content to be, celebrating NOT doing bad stuff? (rhetorical question don't need to answer that)
Let's continue to imprint on budding game devs and audiences hungry for interest games that BIG OPEN WORLDS and PUNISHING difficulty and enemies that fly around from all sides of off screen are the keys to quality gaming.
Here is a Kotaku headline: "Elden Ring Sells 20 Million Copies, Makes Excellent Point
Not everything has to squeeze us for all we're worth"
And it was the topic of last night's Breakout.
Take that AAA, a tRuE gAmE sells, hahah... it's insufferable.
Yes I know all about microstransactions and live service and why they're bad and hooray for Elden Ring not having those. Hooray for me for not murdering or raping anyone today, also... I mean is this where we are content to be, celebrating NOT doing bad stuff? (rhetorical question don't need to answer that)
Let's continue to imprint on budding game devs and audiences hungry for interest games that BIG OPEN WORLDS and PUNISHING difficulty and enemies that fly around from all sides of off screen are the keys to quality gaming.
I also think its just a bad point in general. Elden Ring selling well doesn't prove the tripple A industry wrong at all. A soulless executive is far more likely to come to the conclusion that the Elden Ring guys just ''don't get it'', then be impressed with the sale of that game. The Soulless executive will cheerfully noticed that the microtransactions of their games alone was more profitable than Elden Ring could ever hope to be, and that those ''idiots'' from software guys could have had both the sales from the 20 million copies AND the far more lucrative microtransaction sales if they had ''known what they were doing''.
The typical phrase is ''They don't want money, they want all of the money'' so Elden Ring merely selling well isn't going to impress any soulless executive. Because the point isn't for video games to sell well, but to make every last bit of cash it can for the soulless executive class. I can understand the cheer for a real game selling very well but that's not a metric the typical AAA system is going to be impressed by.
...Yes? Not saying it's a great place to be, but yes, Elden Ring has proven in an age of the predominance of microtransactions and live services, a game can manage to be highly successful despite having neither, proving that commitment to craft with effort can supersede commitment to profit with no effort.
As someone currently struggling through my first Elden Ring playthrough, I'm the last person who'll recommend it beyond it being a game well worth your time if not your effort to milk it for all it's worth. But I also acknowledge that it BLEEDS intent and purpose driven by its vision and not it's profitability. This is the one time I will advocate from the side of the the "Souls games don't need an easy mode" side to say I admire how committed FROM is to their game, and not just a game "everyone" wants.
So the point is cynically disproven when viewed from the perspective of the "soulless executive?" Methinks you've doubled down on the cynicism there. We've collectively lost more when we consider how the moneymakers perceive success over how those who create despite the moneymakers' consideration create.
I'll be honest, Elden Ring is kicking my ass, and I most likely won't be able to finish it anytime soon if at all, but I for goddamn sure respect it for doing as well as it has done in a climate where they could easily have tried to literally sell me "I win" items via microtransactions, and no one would have batted an eyelash.
Well....yeah. Because they have all the power and hold all the cards. Its they who determine how much influence Elden Ring will have on the industry going forward.
Putting it into context compared with FROM’s previous games -
Case in point is it’s relatively safe to assume no one - including BN/FROM - saw this level of success coming. The fact it got to this point by not following popular monetizing industry trends is why it’s surprising, and along with other successful SP games before it only serves to further vindicate a shift away from those practices.
This fairly recent bucking of AAA trends really shouldn’t be affecting the Indie space. They’re best off continuing to make unique games that stand on their own instead of chasing anything, no matter how popular. In any case, it’s not like ER had anything to do with the now-oversaturated Soulslike trend which many Indie devs were also a part of either.
Last edited:
So far I see more reason to be concerned about Tears of the Kingdom than to be hyped by it.
The frequent delays and unclear release dates implies that the game is having a very rough development cycle. But a more important reason for my concern is that Nintendo is so intensely timid about showing or telling anything about the game. The game is releasing in just a few months and we still know almost nothing about it. Even the premise of the game is vague aside from the idea that Ganon is somehow involved. And every time Nintendo concludes their Directs with BOTW2 its always just a bunch of disjointed footage that doesn't tell us anything about the game. The time to give us information about this game was about two delays and five directs ago, but we still know nothing.
The frequent delays and unclear release dates implies that the game is having a very rough development cycle. But a more important reason for my concern is that Nintendo is so intensely timid about showing or telling anything about the game. The game is releasing in just a few months and we still know almost nothing about it. Even the premise of the game is vague aside from the idea that Ganon is somehow involved. And every time Nintendo concludes their Directs with BOTW2 its always just a bunch of disjointed footage that doesn't tell us anything about the game. The time to give us information about this game was about two delays and five directs ago, but we still know nothing.
And you're wrong. The fact that Elden Ring has sold (and is selling) has nothing to do with executive power. We, The People, CHOSE to invest in the product FROM created. WE made it successful. WE recognized it as an exceptional exception to a woefully more and more common rule. WE are the reason we see it flying in the faces of those execs who would rather piecemeal their mediocre products via microtransactions and live services they'll only commit to supporting as long as WE'RE paying for them. Elden Ring serves as a reminder TO those that "have all the power" that they don't need to cheapen their experiences, ironically at higher and recurring prices, to make substantial waves in the gaming market.
If "soulless executives" want to look at Elden Ring's success and ignore it, that's their problem. If WE decide their go-to in perpetual charges is the path of gaming going forward and prove so by accepting mediocrity via perpetual payments to said mediocrity and complaints on low-traffic online forums, that's OUR problem. You give the "soulless executives" too much credit. By that logic, the medical industry should be following the lead of inner-city drug dealers, i.e.: sell insulin and blood pressure meds on street corners and in back alleys if easy, mass distribution is the indicator of quality and success.
If ER put in "I win" items via microtransactions, it would be the biggest gamr story of the year. The only thing From could do at this point that would be more controversial is to add difficulty settings. All the eyelashes would bat so hard the lids would fall off.
Couldn't agree more, which is why I respect the integrity they've maintained forever. If Elden Ring is just another (most recent) reminder that there's a market for games that don't give or sell you the end credits, or worse, ask for a monthly fee or season passes, my hats off to it.
I recently read about how there was an OG release of the first Angry Birds and it was supposed to be part of a reselling of a lot of old mobile games as pay once, no microtransactions style releases. They pulled the plug after the Angry Birds game. Apparently it cut into their profits elsewhere, either by making people wise up to microtransactions or because they were enjoying the pay once game so much that they weren't buying the other games made by the company.
I do have to wonder how much of that came from sticking Martin's name on the posters back when GoT was still a hot property instead of a hot mess. No shade thrown on Elden Ring, but Soulslikes were fairly niche inside the gaming sphere, let alone outside it.
Which would probably be the thing to get me to buy one of their games, but hey, they've got their formula.
I've been playing Forza Horizon 5, where the player character is explicitly stated to be the champion from Horizon 4. The thing is, in 4 the character was a complete mute, but in 5 they get voice lines- and every returning NPC from 4 expresses some sort of surprise that your character speaks now.
Another good example of a silent protagonist is Laura Louis from Enemy Zero. Even though she's a silent protagonist she emotes in a way that is normal and is an actual human reaction. Laura technically does speak, but only when you're loading up a save and she does a quick summary of her current predicament.
I think Jak II did something similar.
Edit: Doh, just watched the Extra Punctuation, he lists that one right in it.
Last edited:
I don't care about what Gordon Freeman has to say, because the story is not about things happening and how it relates to Gordon Freeman. You don't roleplay as Gordon, you are Gordon, more specifically a meat puppet conduit where you, an extra-dimensional being, can exist and interact within the world. So Gordon is an aspect of you with a different name.
Once you give Gordon a voice and his own character and being, now you have to ask questions like, why is Gordon Freeman not a quivering mess on the floor after meeting a Godlike entity that can control time and space, and then finds himself 20 years in the future in a foreign country? You wouldn't be questioning reality because of the knowledge you possess, but Gordon would be.
So is it "lazy writing" to just leave the main character underdeveloped? Sure Half Life would make for a lousy book or movie, but it ain't either of them. Sometimes a game is a game about shooting aliens and the friends you meet along the way, and that's all you need.