Your video game hot take(s) thread
- Thread starter Dany_the_penguin
- Start date
Depends on where you look, my friend. You can't trust Ubisoft nor Acti-Blizz for shit. The new PoP game looks good, but that is all I can say. Microsoft has nothing, aside from Hellblade, but that is a Ninja Theory game and there is still no gameplay! Sony has a big library, so they're great, and Nintendo as always, got plenty of games to spare. Capcom, Sega, and even Square have a cosntant output of either good or unique games. Then there's plenty from smaller studios like Devolver Digital and WayForward.
If nearly all the new releases from Ubisoft and Acti-Blizz a truly soulless for this generation, it don't mean a damn thing to me, because I dislike a majority of their output from 7th and 8th generation (for that gen, both companies have been soulless the entire way through) especially. Outside of 1 or 2 games, Ubisoft games have not had much of a soul since 2013 with Rayman Legends. Activision has the Crash Remake Trilogy, Crash Team Racing Remake, and Crash 4, and that's about it. Even then, those were done by in-house studios that got absorbed into the Call of Duty mines, and Activision ended up fucking CTRR by adding in microtransactions and overpriced shit after release to by-pass the content rating of the ESRB. Also to once again prey off of people with FOMO, kids, or those with heavily addictive tendencies.
No offence, but you clearly wear your hatred for all things AAA and modern on your sleeve so I don't see this conversation going anywhere productive.
No, I don't hate all things AAA and modern. If I did, then I wouldn't play anything from Platinum, Sony, Capcom, Sega, Nintendo, Arc System, SNK, Namco, or any of the the new games from smaller studios and indie. If that was the case, I wouldn't be playing anything pass mid to late 7th generation. Though it is not my fault a majority of the AAA industry refuses try or keeps finding ways to screw over the consumer, or up the price for the filmiest and pathetic reason. How about they get off their asses and try, while people in the gaming audience need to stop falling nor defending the horrible bullshit?!
Last edited:
Sony games like Spider-Man? GoW? GoT? Horizon? All of those games that are literal carbon copy of things Ubisoft came up with? The rest are fighting games studios that haven't changed since the first one. And giving Nintendo as an example of AAA that tries is so absurd I'm certain you meant it as a joke.
Not exactly. Spider-Man barely counts as Sandbox, but it is. Yet it's the characters, story, and combat that hold everything together. Even more so with Miles Morales. God of War 4 & Ragnarök are more 3D Metroidvania/Semi-Open Linear and Dark Souls than anything Ubisoft Sandbox related. Ghost of Tsushima is similar to the Ubisoft formula, but done so much better and put much more passion behind the game. Horizon is definitely closer to the Ubisoft formula as well, but both games have things far more interesting than anything they've put out in over a decade. Both Horizon games are not my thing though. Hence why you're wrong about me, and you don't know a lot about me like you're assuming. I don't know everything about you either, but you're way more cynical than I can ever be. I am more than willing to give stuff a chance; especially when the developers/publishers respect their audience and each other. Also, Ratchet & Clank is still a thing. Did you forget about Rift Apart already?
That's oversimplified. Capcom and Sega do more than fighting games. Monster Hunter World/Rise, Mega Man 11, New Ghost n Goblins, DMC5, Resident Evil 2-4Remake and RE7&8. Sega has Sonic, Yakuza, Virtua Fighter, SOR4, and various remakes of older IPs. These are not exceptions, so don't even try it. Sega doesn't even have that many fighting game franchises You know this. Same thing for Namco (other than licensing Dragonball and sometimes other shounen anime, all they got is Soul Calibur and Tekken). Now granted, it's FROM doing the heavy lifting with their Souls games, but I am not invested in those. I will be getting Armored Core 6 though. SNK still tries and so does Arc System Works. Platinum games don't make tournament fighters either. Do your research.
No, this is not a joke. Nintendo puts out high quality games (exceptions being the recent mainline Pokemon games) and charge at the AAA price. Which most people are happy/desperate to pay for and then some. They've always been AAA since the very beginning. The whole "Nintendo doesn't count" argument for some arbitrary reason, or because "they're only family friendly" has always been bullshit. Plus, they're not afraid to do dark material and usually get it right. In fact, the problem with Nintendo is they almost never drop the price on their AAA games, until the console's life cycle is near dead. You're usually better off getting a Nintendo game used during whatever current console generation for a cheaper price. Nintendo is AAA and most people recognize it. Sounds more like a you issue than anything.
Last edited:
Oh, so they're like Ubisoft stuff but subjectively better? Well that makes it all so much different. I'll make an assumption here that you haven't played any Ubisoft games since before Origins came out. If that's true, please know I have played them as well as every game you mentioned. If that's the case I suggest we do what I initially suggested and just not have this conversation.
Out of every single game you mentioned there the only one, THE ONLY ONE, that is innovative and different was RE7--and I'm being generous considering they just copied Amnesia. Everything else is remakes or the exact same game for the third decade in a row. Platinum does the same spectacle fighter they've always done. The only innovation they ever tried was Revengeneneceene, W101, and Infinite Space, a game three people have ever heard of (One of them is me and I adore that game). You must be able to see how much nonsense it is to claim AAA do nothing new or try and then naming companies that have done 15 Yakuza games, 10 Monster Hunters, 11 Mega Man, DMC (the only innovative and good one wasn't even made by them!), whose only difference is slightly less terrible graphics? And, of course, the fighting games which are either tech nightmares like VF, Tekken, and the lot or the exact same open world brawler with a different IP slapped on it. (DB, Naruto, OP etc.)
I didn't challenge the fact Nintendo was AAA, but the notion they "try." They're the Apple of the gaming world with everything that entails.
I have not touched an AssCreed since II & Brotherhood for a good reason. The last Ubisoft game I have bought, played, and enjoyed was Rayman Legends back in 2013. I did have it for free when I had PS+ a few years later. The games I mentioned on the list are subjectively and objectively better than a majority of the Ubisoft Sandbox Generic Open World Formula of FC/AssCreed. Once again, both Spider-Man games and both of the Norse GoW games play nothing like an Ubisoft game. Other than some map markers, but that is something not exclusive nor invented by Ubisoft.
Like I said before, those play better than anything Ubisoft has to offer on hand. Glad yo know you played them. If you didn't like them, it's understandable to an extent, but I ain't spoiled. There are games better than ones I mentioned, but they are good or great regardless of our different opinions.They were mainly copying FEAR (same writer as RE7) and Clock Tower. Besides, Capcom always experimented with RE in first person (Gun Survivor and Dead Aim says high) and the original RE1 was supposed to be first person during its initial draft. They couldn't due to hardware limitations. RE2-4R play nothing like their original counterparts, and do more than enough to improve the formula or add something different. The closes is RE4R, which makes sense, but it still does something different enough and better than its OG counterpart.
Vanquish is a 3rd person stylish shooter that says high. Plenty of people have heard of Revengance, with it gaining even more and new ground during the late 2010s/early 2020s. W101 is multiplatform since 2021. Infinite Space is the only odd game out on the list. Also, Bayonetta Origin plays nothing like Platinum's usual action game fare, nor like the trilogy. Bayo3 its the franchise itself combined with Scalebound, and allows you summon giant demons outside of QTEs and Action Commands. Freaking awesome!
Not a big Yakuza fan, but they know how to have fun and experiment with their franchise. Not to mention how wacky the franchise still is. Also, Judgement and Yakuza Gaiden take over the brawling aspects now. Like A Dragon/Y7 is a traditional turn based RPG going forward with it and the sequels. Not to mention the various spin-offs. You forgot about that. I could not get into the Yakuza franchise, but I respect it for its style of gameplay and tone, and for doing what worked for the franchise. Monster Hunter was always niche, and only started selling like hot cakes in the West until World and Rise. That was from changing up the combat, and making the mechanics more user friendly. This is one of the cases where streamlining is a good thing and used correctly. Before MM11, there had not been another traditional MM since 2010. Even with MM11, Capcom changed up the formula to make it unique from other games beforehand. Which is what Capcom almost always excel at. The only thing DmC (2013) innovated was the style announcer, dynamic music (MGR was already on that shit), slow-mo ending battles (taken from Bayonetta's camera shutter ending battles) and OG Vergil borrowing some of DmC!Vergil's moves. DMC5 is basically DMC3 with some aspects of DmC (2013) done way much better than the latter, and exceeding the mechanics of the former (an already highly polished and innovative game). Capcom is releasing Exoprimal and has another new game coming out called, Path of the Goddess, so they definitely still try new things with games, or within older IPs. Not to mention Dragon's Dogma II is finally happening. None of these games in the paragraph I would call generic, aside from DmC's art style when in the "real world".
Look I have many problems with the AAA industry, but I am not going to throw everything under the bus. If a AAA game is good and I'm not interested, than there is nothing wrong with that. As long as the publisher or developer is trying and treats its audience right, then they done good in my eyes.
They're still high quality and great games, so they count regardless of your input. Besides, the last VF, before VF5R was the og VF5 in the late 2000s. VF5R was re-done in the Yakuza Engine and was basically Free-2-Play for a long while. Still runs and plays great, got new people invested in the franchise, and is giving Sega the actual courage to make a new entry in the franchise. VF had been dead in the water for a long time before this point. Namco has the Tales of Series and each game is usually different from the last in some type of way.
Nah, Nintendo still puts a better output than whatever Apple does, so there is not much equivalent between the two as far as I'm concerned, but I can see where you're coming from. Nintendo is AAA at the end of the day any way, but thank you for clarifying.
Last edited:
How would you know that when you didn't play them? I did. They play very similarly to Ubisoft games of new, and the worlds are as barren and dull as the Ubisoft games of old. Why would you even venture to have an argument about which is a better game when you didn't play the one you're arguing against? Despite being willing to try anything... Just leave it.
The conversation wasn't about quality, which I would still challenge as most of Namco games on Steam can't even use a mouse. Not to mention how riddled they are with archaic design. And I didn't forget about the various spin-offs, I just didn't think you'd pull reskins of old games and systems as an argument for innovations and "trying."
Apple makes good phones and sells them at great prices to fanatical fans. The next example is going to involve me painting a picture. And I can't paint, so let's avoid that.
There's nothing inherently wrong with being a retro gamer or whatever you're called these days. But please don't argue how stagnant the industry is when you mostly play old games or ones based on old game designs. Which, again, is fine. But your tastes do not invalidate all the progress the industry has made since locked cameras, forced tutorials, invasive cutscenes, tank controls, exposition vomit, limited player agency, claustrophobic level design, and that's just me talking about DMC5.
As you say, if an AAA game is good and you're not interested, there is nothing wrong with that. But then maybe don't shit on said AAA game?
Yes. I've played both Spider-Man games, both Norse GoW's, and Ghost of Tsushima. Spider-Man has nothing in common with Ubisoft, other than an open world (which is not exclusive to either), but it takes more from Arkham and DMC than anything AssCreed/Ubisoft related. Both GoW games have nothing common with an Ubisoft game, other than some map marker/indicators, but once again, that is nothing exclusive to either of them, and Norse GoW plays more like DMC and a Dark Souls game. Hell, both GoWs have light and heavy attack defaulted to R1 and R2 respectively. While in 4 & Rag, yo can switch to classic GoW style controls where light and heavy are [ SQR ] and [TRI] respectively. Ghost of Tsuhima is Sony's & Sucker Punch's answer to AssCreed and Breath of the Wild, but highly better in story, writing, characters, and gameplay compared to the former. If you played games, or take off the Negative Ned lenses, then you would notice this. If you like the games or not, then it's all on you and your choice.
Fair enough, but I was mainly referring to console. You didn't say anything about PC related up until now.
Not all spin-offs are "re-skins". Man, you are really cynical and up the ass (not going to completely blame you). Lighten up a little. I get it, but once again, I am not going to hate on everything. I am either interested or not (especially if they're multiple red flags leading to disaster), at the end of the day. The same applies to you and many others.
Ha! Whenever a person buys a phone from Apple, they're a glorified beta tester. Almost all their phones are overpriced and don't work at launch.
I never said there was anything wrong with being a retro gamer to begin with. I still play plenty of retro games, and pop in the Genesis, GC, PS2, etc. every now and then to get that old gaming goodness. With that said, not every game from the past is perfect, good, nor aged well. Also, I never said my tastes invalidate the progress of the industry. Nor did I imply that either. You assume and project too much. Like you did with @Asita in the "Member Balance" Thread. The only innovation companies like Ubisoft, Activision, WB, and EA have done are ways to screw over the consumers. Also, the RPG mechanics in Origins, Odyssey, and Valhalla are trash. Pay to skip the grind my ass! Capcom had their moments too of course, but they actually paid for trying to screw consumers over and actually think about what they did.
I can shit on it when it's beyond broken at launch (or still broken afterward), is overpriced (expecting to pay $60-70+ or for "premium and exclusive sucks editions!"), feeds on those with FOMO/addictive tendencies, financially vulnerable, uses lootboxes, or abusing the employees that lead to said mostly broken games, then I can shit on them. If you like AC, Ubisoft, or their recent games, fine by me, but I won't praise a series or recent outputs for only being barely better than past games, but still failing at doing better than those in the competition. I am not going to play every single game, nor watch every single movie to know if it's good or bad. At some point you can tell where these are going to go, when you're not going to like something, nor worth bother wasting time to impress some people online or to meets some arbitrary "standard". I can tell when something is not worth my money nor time, and that shit is really valuable.
Another thing: Take it away me from a few weeks ago.
Take it or leave it. You're the one that keeps going, even though you said we should end this conversation.
Last edited:
You keep talking about games you didn't play and making claims about them as if you did. I don't think anyone would blame me for no longer wishing to speak to you at this point. Have a nice day.
There’s no shortage of examples on YouTube illustrating the Ubisoft/ABK/EA/etc. issue with modern AAA practices.
Generalizing it all together as being the same as others is an oversimplification. Leaving alone the business side of things, while it’s true that everybody ultimately copies from others in some way creatively, the game world wouldn’t have wound up drawing the above conclusions if there weren’t vastly differing or degrees of respectable ways to go about it.
I appreciate the back up, but Nox is not going to listen. Also, they made some grand speech about leaving the site, so Nox did not stick around long.
All videogames are improved by the simple ability to just curl into a ball and roll around wherever you want. No exceptions! Hear this, developers large and small, do not fear the sphere;
Metroid - of course, obviously don't need to explain.
Zelda Majora's Mask - Goron mask rollabouts were the optimal method of enjoying your daily commute.
Sonic - It may seem obvious, but if you try imagining the game without speed rolls, it's a matter of necessity.
Katamari - To defeat ball. You must become ball.
Super Monkey Ball - same as above, just add monkeys.
Freedom Planet - Is sonic.^^
Yooka Laylee and Maybe Banjo Kazooie - 2 animals 1 ball.
Rock of Ages - Plato is ball now.
Inside - Um, is this a spoiler?
Kirby! - Kirbeeeeeeii! (I am not drunk, who told you that??)
Psychonauts - Ok, fine, it's riding on big balls, but the controls check out the same.
Dodgeball Academia - No excuse for bad punctuality anymore kiddos, sorry.
Point being hopefully taken away from this is Devs can't fail with the inclusion of rolly balls. If you are a dev who is a little unconfident of whether players will enjoy the gameplay upon release, let them be a ball, if only for a bit. And if you're a confident dev with more scratch...that metacritic score can always be a point higher, can't it? This theory is airtight, just don't quote me in court plz.
Metroid - of course, obviously don't need to explain.
Zelda Majora's Mask - Goron mask rollabouts were the optimal method of enjoying your daily commute.
Sonic - It may seem obvious, but if you try imagining the game without speed rolls, it's a matter of necessity.
Katamari - To defeat ball. You must become ball.
Super Monkey Ball - same as above, just add monkeys.
Freedom Planet - Is sonic.^^
Yooka Laylee and Maybe Banjo Kazooie - 2 animals 1 ball.
Rock of Ages - Plato is ball now.
Inside - Um, is this a spoiler?
Kirby! - Kirbeeeeeeii! (I am not drunk, who told you that??)
Psychonauts - Ok, fine, it's riding on big balls, but the controls check out the same.
Dodgeball Academia - No excuse for bad punctuality anymore kiddos, sorry.
Point being hopefully taken away from this is Devs can't fail with the inclusion of rolly balls. If you are a dev who is a little unconfident of whether players will enjoy the gameplay upon release, let them be a ball, if only for a bit. And if you're a confident dev with more scratch...that metacritic score can always be a point higher, can't it? This theory is airtight, just don't quote me in court plz.
Last edited:
This a take I can get behind to an extent. My only problem is when every single publisher start doing it, or remaking games that are not even that old or work fine enough already. TLOU Pt. I (There can be only one!).
While enjoyable and respectable fun times, the modern Wolfenstein games never had good level design. From the first to the last, this issue grew noticeably worse, tho somehow the first of the reboot series seemed to avoid the criticism mostly. It stood out way more sharply in the sequel cause, IMO at least, the concept of each level as a visual thumbnail with brief summary was so much cooler as a pitch to get you as a player all hyped up beforehand, only to reveal their layouts were repetitive, uninspired, unmemorable and surprisingly short. The contrast was impossible to ignore. The disappointment cataclysmic. And yet the next game added further problems with live-service crap, live-service design, weaker promotion along with less ambitious level thumbnails, so level design got understandably pushed aside for those criticisms.
Returning to the first reboot, (plus the first spin-off) - the freshness of the story as a surprise to most who was expecting some kinda Duke Nukem type shenanigans (based off the IP history) was a big deal, combined with the highly competent gameplay and visuals even impressed resident cynic Yahtzee. It's enough fuzzies to overlook a little flaw like bland level design - I mean, everything still looked and sounded great, and nazi architecture is expected to be artless, dull and repetitive anyway by nature of their ideology, so worked well enough for most to not notice or feel bothered by the flaw. Regardless, the level design is still bad, and it's always been bad for the series. I wish it weren't.
Returning to the first reboot, (plus the first spin-off) - the freshness of the story as a surprise to most who was expecting some kinda Duke Nukem type shenanigans (based off the IP history) was a big deal, combined with the highly competent gameplay and visuals even impressed resident cynic Yahtzee. It's enough fuzzies to overlook a little flaw like bland level design - I mean, everything still looked and sounded great, and nazi architecture is expected to be artless, dull and repetitive anyway by nature of their ideology, so worked well enough for most to not notice or feel bothered by the flaw. Regardless, the level design is still bad, and it's always been bad for the series. I wish it weren't.
I've always had a problem the Machine Games Wolfenstein levels in the reboot trilogy. The stealth especially got worse with each new entry and dragged on far longer than it should have. So much that Youngblood not only made the same mistakes as Wolfenstein (09) with the constant respawning enemies that grow stronger in the open/hub-world, but started copying Ubisoft of all companies! Why?! I refused not to touch the game, and pretend it ends at New Colossus. It's why I'll never play them again. I'd sooner whip up Bulletstorm again or pop in Crysis 2 & 3. What doesn't help matter that they're are so many new old-school/old school style shooters mixed with some new school that has proper level design and better twitch gameplay. The reboot trilogy seems old and archaic now or by comparison. You know something is wrong (or right?) when games like Singularity, Bulletstorm, or even Resistance 3 has better level design than all of the reboot trilogy.
YoVideoGames ain't wrong about FFXVI being FF Tactics in dark, grim, tone and plot wise. So it is a true FF story.