Your video game hot take(s) thread

[The Rogue Wolf]

So.. we gamers, we just want games that work, release complete, with no mtx. We want new IPs!

lol... no

Immortals of Aveum Studio Suffers Massive Layoffs

Immortals of Aveum developer Ascendant Studios has laid off nearly half of its staff just a few weeks after its AAA fantasy project launched.

www.escapistmagazine.com

There's also the possibility that it just wasn't good. I'm not obliged to buy bad games.

 

[XsjadoBlayde]

So.. we gamers, we just want games that work, release complete, with no mtx. We want new IPs!

lol... no

Immortals of Aveum Studio Suffers Massive Layoffs

Immortals of Aveum developer Ascendant Studios has laid off nearly half of its staff just a few weeks after its AAA fantasy project launched.

www.escapistmagazine.com

Look hey, I bought the game, democratically voting with my wallet like some sort of barely functioning citizen. (Also cause I was interested in trying some FPS magic shooty wizard bangs) And just like all other aspects of life, the masses trample all over it to elect Tories instead! Uh, I meant, um, vote live-service microtransactions? Instead? Either way, I did my part for the community, for society, for the future of humanity!

they did add a patch that made the framerate worse recently though. not cool.

 

[BrawlMan]

I'm with you there, Max!

​

 

[Old_Hunter_77]

With the major, highly-anticipated games seeming to get bigger, longer and more complicated, the review and coverage cycle has become completely untenable. This year I am seeing major games come out to one kind of reception, then after a couple of weeks- which is not a long time at all but is like a million internet years- change pretty significantly. Certainly significantly enough to effect purchasing decisions for casual gamers who are not obsessed with FOMOing their way through the latest things.

Obviously I'm summarizing extremely as to how I understood it but it's like:

Starfield: first kind of meh, but then actually gets good IF...IF... you're down for it. So the early reviews are kind of useless.
Final Fantasy 16: what an awesome spectacle, GOTY! But wait, end game pacing and side quests etc are poop so, no...
Lies of P: Bloodborne + Sekiro, 10/10! Oh but wait at around the halfway point it's a miserable slog and bullshit unfair and there are issues with even the core mechanics.
Baldur's Gate 3: Technical marvel and brilliant story! Except maybe the final third?
Armored Core 6: Awesome mechanics, control, setting, etc, wow what a game, reviews are out yay! Oh wait, wait.. the bosses introduce INSANE difficulty spikes throughout the game. We should know that going in!

The common thread is that early reviews are basically of the first half of these games. And of course they are- because they're so long and complicated!

Of course as with many negative recent trends, I blame Elden Ring. "Oh sure the last part sucks." Wtf, we just gonna give 'em a pass for that, right? Ok let's keep doing that I guess...

Well, I think the second half of games is just as important as the first half. And I know- way more people play the first half, because people don't finish games. But reviews and analysis to me don't make sense without accounting for the whole game. Yet the early reviews effect the conversation and sales about a game, which effects which future games get made and people's jobs and everything.

If I were a soul-less games exec I would be directing my devs to focus 80% of their efforts on the first 20% of our games. Which... suck, you know? My experiences with Everspace 2 and FF16 has made me really careful about going into games I'm unsure of now unless I read multiple reports of good end games (while I may feel similar about Baldur's Gate 3 and Armored Core 6 and not finish them, at least I understood that risk more because those are games that interest me a lot so I was happy to risk trying them).

I think I just respect the recent Zelda games more, even though I still have no interest in playing them. I am not really hearing much disappointment or negative reaction to the back half of these games.

As a consumer I know to just ignore early reviews, but of course I follow games media a bit to pick up on this trend. Not fair to other people that it's like this.

 

[hanselthecaretaker2]

With the major, highly-anticipated games seeming to get bigger, longer and more complicated, the review and coverage cycle has become completely untenable. This year I am seeing major games come out to one kind of reception, then after a couple of weeks- which is not a long time at all but is like a million internet years- change pretty significantly. Certainly significantly enough to effect purchasing decisions for casual gamers who are not obsessed with FOMOing their way through the latest things.

Obviously I'm summarizing extremely as to how I understood it but it's like:

Starfield: first kind of meh, but then actually gets good IF...IF... you're down for it. So the early reviews are kind of useless.
Final Fantasy 16: what an awesome spectacle, GOTY! But wait, end game pacing and side quests etc are poop so, no...
Lies of P: Bloodborne + Sekiro, 10/10! Oh but wait at around the halfway point it's a miserable slog and bullshit unfair and there are issues with even the core mechanics.
Baldur's Gate 3: Technical marvel and brilliant story! Except maybe the final third?
Armored Core 6: Awesome mechanics, control, setting, etc, wow what a game, reviews are out yay! Oh wait, wait.. the bosses introduce INSANE difficulty spikes throughout the game. We should know that going in!

The common thread is that early reviews are basically of the first half of these games. And of course they are- because they're so long and complicated!

Of course as with many negative recent trends, I blame Elden Ring. "Oh sure the last part sucks." Wtf, we just gonna give 'em a pass for that, right? Ok let's keep doing that I guess...

Well, I think the second half of games is just as important as the first half. And I know- way more people play the first half, because people don't finish games. But reviews and analysis to me don't make sense without accounting for the whole game. Yet the early reviews effect the conversation and sales about a game, which effects which future games get made and people's jobs and everything.

If I were a soul-less games exec I would be directing my devs to focus 80% of their efforts on the first 20% of our games. Which... suck, you know? My experiences with Everspace 2 and FF16 has made me really careful about going into games I'm unsure of now unless I read multiple reports of good end games (while I may feel similar about Baldur's Gate 3 and Armored Core 6 and not finish them, at least I understood that risk more because those are games that interest me a lot so I was happy to risk trying them).

I think I just respect the recent Zelda games more, even though I still have no interest in playing them. I am not really hearing much disappointment or negative reaction to the back half of these games.

As a consumer I know to just ignore early reviews, but of course I follow games media a bit to pick up on this trend. Not fair to other people that it's like this.

For Elden Ring being as big as it is, IMO it still introduces more variety than other Souls late games. In terms of progression the only repeated area is the capital, but then it’s mostly covered in ash anyways and all you’re really doing is beelining it to the bosses.

 

[Kyrian007]

I think I just respect the recent Zelda games more, even though I still have no interest in playing them. I am not really hearing much disappointment or negative reaction to the back half of these games.

As a consumer I know to just ignore early reviews, but of course I follow games media a bit to pick up on this trend. Not fair to other people that it's like this.

Back half, no. There's no issue there in Tears of the Kingdom. Last 1/8th or so though... maybe so. It doesn't end well, not as bad as its intro... but kind of a letdown after the fantastic journey it takes you on.

Pretty right on take though. I personally like reviews. But generally I don't let them fully influence my purchase decision. For the most part they can help me temper my expectations and prepare me for the type of experience I'm going to have. I'm going to get Starfield, later this week actually. But I found say, Yahtzee's review not only funny; but genuinely a useful take on the material. Mostly because I know where he and I differ on what kind of games we like, as well as where our tastes are similar. He did not give Starfield a thumbs up, but his review told me that I'm going to enjoy it.

And yes, I see the same trend with games. And reviews are a part of it. As well as publishers running out of patience with developers in a rush to see some money rolling in. As well as devs running out of resources and having to cut things down as it gets closer to release. As well as expectations forcing some devs to stretch out the back half of a game because the game needs "more" to satisfy whatever executive is saying it doesn't have "enough." Yeah, there is a tendency for early game to be better and more polished than endgame.

 

[Old_Hunter_77]

For Elden Ring being as big as it is, IMO it still introduces more variety than other Souls late games. In terms of progression the only repeated area is the capital, but then it’s mostly covered in ash anyways and all you’re really doing is beelining it to the bosses.

And tbh I don't really think back-half of Elden Ring is "bad" per se. But that is a common opinion so I'm using that as an example- I mean, I haven't played Starfield and I'm barely through the intro in Baldur's Gate 3 so I don't have opinions about those games' endings- but the fact that many people kind of take it for granted that ER's end part is not good yet the game is like 10/10 is a trend point I come back to.

I think the reason ER's end game is criticized is that the Snowfield and the twister islands are a lot smaller and less involved than the other areas. But frankly I don't mind- the game is exhausting, I really wasn't looking for even more catacombs and caves by that point. The other criticism is the crazy bosses, but I think all the bosses are crazy so, whatever.

 

[hanselthecaretaker2]

And tbh I don't really think back-half of Elden Ring is "bad" per se. But that is a common opinion so I'm using that as an example- I mean, I haven't played Starfield and I'm barely through the intro in Baldur's Gate 3 so I don't have opinions about those games' endings- but the fact that many people kind of take it for granted that ER's end part is not good yet the game is like 10/10 is a trend point I come back to.

I think the reason ER's end game is criticized is that the Snowfield and the twister islands are a lot smaller and less involved than the other areas. But frankly I don't mind- the game is exhausting, I really wasn't looking for even more catacombs and caves by that point. The other criticism is the crazy bosses, but I think all the bosses are crazy so, whatever.

Snowfield is actually kinda huge in its own right, but also completely optional. Either way by then and with Farum Azula the fatigue typically sets in for anyone but the diehards. What I appreciate most about the game is it has lot of lateral breadth for supporting different builds, and it’s designed in a way that makes it easier to seek those things out after an initial playthrough. There are very few mandatory things that get in the way or slow the player down once they have a feel for the game world.

 

[BrawlMan]

Armored Core 6: Awesome mechanics, control, setting, etc, wow what a game, reviews are out yay! Oh wait, wait.. the bosses introduce INSANE difficulty spikes throughout the game. We should know that going in!

You're not wrong, but it's a FromSoftware game. I don't know what you were expecting there. Pretty much nearly their entire library have weird or bad difficulty spikes. Even before Dark Souls, they had this issue in many of their games, and AC was no exception. I know you're keeping the casual audience in mind for this arguement.

With the major, highly-anticipated games seeming to get bigger, longer and more complicated, the review and coverage cycle has become completely untenable. This year I am seeing major games come out to one kind of reception, then after a couple of weeks- which is not a long time at all but is like a million internet years- change pretty significantly. Certainly significantly enough to effect purchasing decisions for casual gamers who are not obsessed with FOMOing their way through the latest things.

The common thread is that early reviews are basically of the first half of these games. And of course they are- because they're so long and complicated!

. But reviews and analysis to me don't make sense without accounting for the whole game. Yet the early reviews effect the conversation and sales about a game, which effects which future games get made and people's jobs and everything.

It's why I don't bother with early reviews, nor most "impressions" video. While some are understandable, the rest is the usual clickbait race, or the publishers/developers not reviewers and analysts the proper play time to get these reviews out. If it's a long game, give these people at least month to get their reviews together. At least that way, most people will be organized, and it will be a benefit to everyone involved, consumers, gamers, reviewers of all types, and onto the developers and publishers themselves.

 

[BrawlMan]

Nothing against Gaming Bolt, but it sounds like he barely played Double Dragon Gaiden. Calling the combat shallow is not true, and there's a good amount moves for each character (with many more you can unlock with their own dedicated move sets), and you can either buff them, your supers, and cancel into other moves and other supers. You can even do tag team combos, or perform another super after switching a character. If you're expecting like 5000 different moves, then you came to the wrong game. The game has a great move list for all characters. Maybe not the most (still more than many other brawlers of old and new), but it's the quality that matters.

DD Gaiden doesn't look "generic" for pixel art. Were you playing the same game? I will admit, while the game does not have as much detail compared to Scott Pilgrim or River City Girls, but DDG still has plenty of it's own details. So the game ain't exactly slacking in backgrounds nor sprite work. This game was in development for 5 years, and Modus put their heart into it.

​

Another pet peeve of mine is the "I'll take an interesting failure over a iterative sequel/remake any day of the week". I find that highly debatable, and disagree mostly. I get where some critics reviewers are getting from, but there is nothing wrong liking a sequel or remake over an original idea that preformed badly or didn't do well. Anyone remember Geist or NeverDead? Geist was a experimental GameCube exclusive FPS where you could possess people and objects. The controls suck horribly, and weren't even good by 2005 standards. I bought the game in 2007, and returned in 3 days. I got it used at GameStop at the time, and got my $5 bucks back when I couldn't get through it. NeverDead I never bothered with, but seeing the gameplay didn't leave me impressed. Sure it was an original idea with a guy losing body parts and attacking with said body parts, but the game has a horrible frame rate, is overly difficult, glitchy in making certain fight and stages tougher than they should be, and was rushed out the door. God help you, if your "interesting failure" ages bad or gets lost to anal histories of gaming. Not to mention if you get an interesting failure, a failure of a sequel, or remake all at the same time. That would suck and everyone loses. Wouldn't it?

Now sometimes these interesting failures are either due to bad timing, bad marketing, or all of the above. One of my favorite failures is Asura's Wrath. It was actually ahead of the curb in cinematic gaming, and the best use of QTEs. The main reasons AW failed: lack of advertisement by Capcom, Capcom shitty DLC practices, locking the true ending behind DLC (it was supposed to be a full-on sequel hook, but Capcom told CC2 to finish with a conclusive story due to the backlash and lack of sales), and most people not being used to the "episodic"/multimedia gaming format at the time. A trend that set for a while in the mid 2010s, was developers/publishers releasing games by episode with a cheap price per episode. Or just wait until the full game launches and buy that. In fact, Capcom was guilty of this with Resident Evil Revelations 2. It paid off, but nowadays and since the late 2010s, most people will just tell you to buy the full digital game or physical release. Asura's Wrath can be ported with all its content, sold at $20-25, and no would complain. I sure as hell would be happy.

 

[hanselthecaretaker2]

Nothing against Gaming Bolt, but it sounds like he barely played Double Dragon Gaiden. Calling the combat shallow is not true, and there's a good amount moves for each character (with many more you can unlock with their own dedicated move setes), and you can either buff them, your supers, and cancel into other moves and other supers. You can even do tag team combos, or perform another super after switching a character. If you're expecting like 5000 different moves, then you came to the wrong game. The game has a great move list for all character. Maybe not the most (still more than many other brawlers of old and new), but it's the quality that matters.

DD Gaiden doesn't look "generic" for pixel art. Were you playing the same game? I will admit, while the game does not have as much detail compared to Scott Pilgrim or River City Girls, it still has plenty of it's own details. So the game ain't exeactly slacking in backgrounds nor spite work. This game was in development for 5 years, and Modus put their heart into it.

​

Another pet peeve of mine is the "I'll take an interesting failure over a iterative sequel/remake any day of the week". I find that highly debatable, and disagree mostly. I get where some critics reviewers are getting from, but there is nothing wrong liking a sequel or remake over an original idea that preformed badly or didn't do well. Anyone remember Geist or NeverDead? Geist was a experimental GameCube exclusive FPS where you could possess people and objects. The controls suck horribly, and weren't even good by 2005 standards. I bought the game in 2007, and returned in 3 days. I got used at GameStop at the time, and got my $5 bucks back when I couldn't get through it. NeverDead I never bothered with, but seeing the gameplay didn't leave me impressed. Sure it was an original idea with a guy losing body parts and attacking with said body parts, but the game has a horrible framerate, is overly difficult, glitchy in making certain fight and stages tougher than they should be, and was rushed out the door. God help you, if your "interesting failure" ages bad or gets lost to anal histories of gaming. Not to mention if you get an interesting failure, or a failure of a sequel or remake all the same time. That would suck and everyone loses. Wouldn't it?

Now sometimes these interesting failures are either due to bad timing, bad marketing, or all of the above. One of my favorite failures is Asura's Wrath. It was actually head of the curb of cinematic gaming, and the best use of QTEs. The main reasons AW failed: lack of advertisement by Capcom, Capcom shitty DLC practices, locking the true ending behind DLC (it was supposed to be a full-on sequel hook, but Capcom told CC2 to finish with a conclusive story due to the backlash and lack of sales), and most people not being used to the "episodic"/multimedia gaming format at the time. A trend that set for a while in the mid 2010s, was developers/publishers releasing games by episode with a cheap price per episode. Or just wait until the full game launches and buy that, In fact, Capcom was guilty of this with Resident Evil Revelations 2. It paid off, but nowadays and since the late 2010s, most people will just tell you to buy the full digital game or physical release. Asura's Wrath can be ported with all its content, sold at $20-25, and no would complain. I sure as hell would be happy.

Gaming Bolt is almost like watching a gaming news network. They may make some good points here and there and the production quality is above average, but they’ll never tap into a subject much beyond the bullet point surface level stuff.

 

[BrawlMan]

Gaming Bolt is almost like watching a gaming news network. They may make some good points here and there and the production quality is above average, but they’ll never tap into a subject much beyond the bullet point surface level stuff.

I always knew they existed, but I never watched too many of their videos. The few videos I did see seemed fine enough. Their Double Dragon review has several red flags. The first major one being when he called it a "button masher". The game punishes button mashers. You might be able to button mash a little bit on the first stage, because it's easy, but even when you get to a boss they have punishments in place for people who carelessly hit the attack button. The IGN review is arguably worse, despite them giving the game a 7 instead of a 6. It sounds like the reviewer of that particular video, wanted to give it a 6 or 5, but chose a 7, because they already faced backlash from the last two Double Dragon game reviews.


I can say after Gaming Bolt's review, I don't want to touch any of the other videos now.

 

[Old_Hunter_77]

We've talked a bunch about physical vs digital media recently and then the news came out this week about plans for XBox's 2024 console glow-up. New versions of the Series S and X, new controllers, some more features- that's all expected. The two attention-grabbing things are:

1- They're sticking with the higher/lower tier of consoles. The S is not going away. My repeated hot take is that this is good for consumers and as a Sony Pony I kinda wish there was a smaller, cheaper PS5 that would work good on a regular TV equivalent like Microsoft has. Now my opinion on this is subject to change depending on price- if they end up raising the price of the S because they make the hard drive bigger or whatever then, yeah, that's stupid- cost is really the thing and I like having cheaper options for people.

2- The X will not have a disc drive, which is actually one of the justifications for the higher price of the X in the first place! If they end up charging the same price for a new X that now has no drive, that is quite a dedication to eliminating physical media. I would hope they are at least basing this on some kind of market research (and I only hope that just because it would at least make business sense but who knows these days).
Then I'll be curious- will they sell a disc drive peripheral? If not, then they are really saying fuck you to discs which is either crazy or practical depending on numbers. If they do, then it will be justifiably interpreted as opportunistic and sleazy to those that use discs, which again just comes down to numbers (i.e., how many people are there out there who will not have YET purchased a series X AND want to use discs?)

Worth nothing that buy this time the iPhone 15 will be out which is promising you'll be able to play AAA games on it. If we get to a point where consumers will be like "why should I buy an XBox when I can play these games on my phone" then, boy, Microsoft's cloud-everything strategy better start paying dividends for them or something.

 

[BrawlMan]

- The X will not have a disc drive, which is actually one of the justifications for the higher price of the X in the first place! If they end up charging the same price for a new X that now has no drive, that is quite a dedication to eliminating physical media. I would hope they are at least basing this on some kind of market research (and I only hope that just because it would at least make business sense but who knows these days).

It's nothing more than wishful thinking on their part. I know there's more people who do digital now today, that are still no reason not to exclude people who want physical discs.

Worth nothing that buy this time the iPhone 15 will be out which is promising you'll be able to play AAA games on it. If we get to a point where consumers will be like "why should I buy an XBox when I can play these games on my phone" then, boy, Microsoft's cloud-everything strategy better start paying dividends for them or something.

This is the same Microsoft that's willing to quit the console race by 2027, because they can't put any effort to make any games, and are afraid that they won't have the highest subscriber count possible. They've been setting themselves up a failure for 10 years now. Let. Them. "Die".

 

[Old_Hunter_77]

I just couldn't take that 2027 thing seriously. Like who's making 2027 predictions today, come on, lol. Gamepass subscriptions and console wars in 2027, what is anyone even talking about. That feels like that Dude in the Bar Who Rants About Politics going about how "you'll see America will split into two countries in 5 years." Ok, buddy, too bad I won't be able to make fun of you for it in 5 years.

 

[BrawlMan]

I just couldn't take that 2027 thing seriously. Like who's making 2027 predictions today, come on, lol. Gamepass subscriptions and console wars in 2027, what is anyone even talking about. That feels like that Dude in the Bar Who Rants About Politics going about how "you'll see America will split into two countries in 5 years." Ok, buddy, too bad I won't be able to make fun of you for it in 5 years.

Why I highly doubt it, I wouldn't be surprised, if Microsoft did. Like I said before, they've been setting themselves up for failure for the past 10 years. If they don't give a rat's ass about what they're doing, then why should I? I got plenty of games to keep me company. Microsoft's useless ass has nothing for me.

 

[Old_Hunter_77]

Why I highly doubt it, I wouldn't be surprised, if Microsoft did. Like I said before, they've been setting themselves up for failure for the past 10 years. If they don't give a rat's ass about what they're doing, then why should I? I got plenty games to keep me company I got plenty of games to keep me company. Microsoft's useless ass has nothing for me.

Um... ok?
No one here "cares" about any of these companies, we're just talking about gaming news, you know?
You can replace the word "Microsoft" with "Sony" or "Nintendo." We all know about corporate greed and all that.

But the one company that will never get out of the gaming industry is the one that also makes the world's most ubiquitous software, operating system, and second most used cloud service infrastructure. Microsoft is the one company we know is here to stay in this business.

 

[BrawlMan]

No one here "cares" about any of these companies

Depends on who you're talking about or who used to be here. B-Cell microsoft, but he's not here anymore, thank Christ!

Microsoft is the one company we know is here to stay in this business.

If you say so, because they can't seem to make up their mind and cry whenever they lose, nor get every single thing they want. And even when they get something they still biatch like they lost something, as we have seen for the past couple years now. Especially this year.

 

[hanselthecaretaker2]

Um... ok?
No one here "cares" about any of these companies, we're just talking about gaming news, you know?
You can replace the word "Microsoft" with "Sony" or "Nintendo." We all know about corporate greed and all that.

But the one company that will never get out of the gaming industry is the one that also makes the world's most ubiquitous software, operating system, and second most used cloud service infrastructure. Microsoft is the one company we know is here to stay in this business.

They’d be better off just sticking to that, IMHO. Jury is still out on what the cloud can do for gaming as a future norm. Probably will tie in with AI which all these tech corps seem to be setting their sights on next.

 

[Gordon_4]

We've talked a bunch about physical vs digital media recently and then the news came out this week about plans for XBox's 2024 console glow-up. New versions of the Series S and X, new controllers, some more features- that's all expected. The two attention-grabbing things are:

1- They're sticking with the higher/lower tier of consoles. The S is not going away. My repeated hot take is that this is good for consumers and as a Sony Pony I kinda wish there was a smaller, cheaper PS5 that would work good on a regular TV equivalent like Microsoft has. Now my opinion on this is subject to change depending on price- if they end up raising the price of the S because they make the hard drive bigger or whatever then, yeah, that's stupid- cost is really the thing and I like having cheaper options for people.

2- The X will not have a disc drive, which is actually one of the justifications for the higher price of the X in the first place! If they end up charging the same price for a new X that now has no drive, that is quite a dedication to eliminating physical media. I would hope they are at least basing this on some kind of market research (and I only hope that just because it would at least make business sense but who knows these days).
Then I'll be curious- will they sell a disc drive peripheral? If not, then they are really saying fuck you to discs which is either crazy or practical depending on numbers. If they do, then it will be justifiably interpreted as opportunistic and sleazy to those that use discs, which again just comes down to numbers (i.e., how many people are there out there who will not have YET purchased a series X AND want to use discs?)

Worth nothing that buy this time the iPhone 15 will be out which is promising you'll be able to play AAA games on it. If we get to a point where consumers will be like "why should I buy an XBox when I can play these games on my phone" then, boy, Microsoft's cloud-everything strategy better start paying dividends for them or something.

If they’re going all in on digital then they better start expanding the internal storage. 1TB isn’t gonna cut it; 2TB needs to be the new minimum standard, and I’d argue that in lieu of the disc drive, the Series X should have like a 4TB SSD (that size bracket is still very expensive at the consumer level) to justify its higher cost.