You take their game for free and play by their one rule of don't write anything before a certain date, or you wait until it comes out and do whatever you want. It's as simple as that. Don't like it? Don't take the game from the publisher/developer. It's not shady or sketchy ... it's about having respect for the fact you're in a privileged position.
PandaBear's forum posts
Amazing Spider-Man 2 on a flight from LA to Brisbane. 4/5
I've tried to finish the first film TWICE and failed. I just got too bored ... but this one was better. I mean there's issues with it of course, but you know for two hours I enjoyed it. And Garfield is great as Spider-Man... Maguire had more emotional weight but Garfield is closer to how I read him in the comics. Even if you didn't like (or see) the first film I'd say watch this... I mean to my mind origin stories are rarely the most interesting part of a character's story... it's those middle chapters where things get interesting.
It's no Captain America: The Winter Soldier but it sure as shit ain't no Spider-Man 3.
@finaldasa: Ok, fair point. But I feel like recently critics have been naval gazing WAY too much lately. I mean I like reading reviews and they have informed purchases for me -- a recent example is Wolfenstein: The New Order, a game I would have happily ignored based on how much I hated the last game but was swayed by the high score given by critics I trust. But one of my all-time favourite games is Resident Evil 5 which wasn't exactly a critical darling (not slammed either, but not as loved as 4 by any stretch).
I just don't think that level-headed people who are into games and read reviews are looking for a critical consensus and that games journos need to stop reacting to what people are saying on Twitter and in comments sections like it represents the majority of games or even the majority of users of their site. Destiny was a let down for people who reviewed it, but I'm sure it has it's die-hard fans. This is every medium - books, movies, music.
I'm not trying to be dense, but I don't get what the point in this video is. Games did go through bigger changes in the 90s than in the past decade, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't expect further leaps in gameplay...
I'm 30, I've been playing games since I was six starting with my 486 PC and SEGA Master System and I'm still incredibly impressed by games, so if the point of this video is that older games are less easily impressed well I'd say that's an incredibly naive generalisation. Hell I only just started playing Dark Souls a month ago and love it (late to the party, I know)... I don't care that my Xbox One is taking a rest to play a last gen game. Why would I?
And whoever said there needs to be a critical consensus or that there ever was one? I worked in a video game shop for years in the early 2000s and trust me the general public don't always move as a herd. I mean
I don't get Danny's point... it's gamers fault for expecting Destiny to be better? Nobody was expect a Doom to Half-Life jump, but they were rightfully expecting a more open online world. And they didn't get it.
Diminishing returns may be true, but seriously compare GTA III to GTA V and tell me there isn't a WORLD of difference.
tl;dr - Danny is obsessed with technical achievement in this video and largely ignores gameplay evolution in order to say Destiny is good it's just gamers who are too negative.
I'm in two minds... the whole modern take on Final Fantasy where it's more sci-fi than fantasy isn't new I know, but I sort of miss the medieval style worlds. I think FFXIII burnt me on this style, while FFVII was about as "futuristic" as I like the games to get.
All that said I do think the series needs this game -- the addition of the car alone was enough to pique my interest... but I was excited about FFXIII as well. Fuck that game really let me down :| ... and I miss turned based combat with deeply customisable characters who I am in complete control of.
I'm being too negative... this game looks fun. But there's a lot of ground to make up for in this series.
It's that crashing symbol sound I don't like.
The songs are so varied but every one of them is punctuated by that goddamn clanging sound. Also I played the demo and once again, like the last game, there's basically no RPG elements. I mean yes there's levels and stuff... but so what? I actually quite like the art style, but why not make it so the boss battles actually have SOME stratergy.
Why no make it so you can create a custom selection that flows into each other too? I dunno... the game just feels half-done to me.
I want to like it, but just can't get past those issues.
It's a rhythm game. If you're expecting something akin to a full-fledged RPG, you're looking in the wrong place.
Not full-fledged, but SOMETHING. Anything more than tap the circle, swipe the circle, hold and slide inside the circle. And all the while these iconic songs are playing with a symbol just slams away. I mean they couldn't come up with a unique sound for each stage or a handful at least? Imagine if it was multi-tracked and you controlled the violins in one song and the vocals in another.
It just seems like a lazy rhythm-action game compared to Guitar Hero for example. I mean Square-Enix own the songs and the masters, surely they could do more than this.
The vast majority of rhythm games are based on simple actions to follow the music. Even Guitar Hero can be boiled down to "hold the right colored button and hit the strum bar." Ouendan, Gitaroo-Man, Space Channel 5, Project Diva, Amplitude and numerous other rhythm games are based on equally simple mechanics. The point is to allow the player to keep their focus on the rhythm and the action on screen without distracting the player with mechanics that are too bloated for their own good.
I do see your point. But I feel that with the Final Fantasy name attached it's not too big of a stretch to expect some level of tactics. It even has experience and progression, but it all feels tacked on. I like rhythm games for sure, I don't want PaRappa The Rapper over-complicated for the sake of it, but his game has boss fights and health bars... I dunno. Just some sort of music based fighting would have been fun. I don't hate these games, I just don't think they're the best use of the licence.
@epidehl: Oh ok... well that's something I'll have to YouTube and check out. It's not a fix all for me, but that is good to know.
I'm genuinely confused why you're breaking it down into console generations? I mean are games more sexist because Microsoft and Sony switched to x86 processors? Seriously... you could say over the last decade there's been a greater attempt to tell stories in different ways and that has lead to creative works that some would find offensive or whatever. But I mean saying the discussion didn't happen during the last (sixth) generation ... I mean what?
These new consoles are literally a year old, it's not like discussions about feminism and sexism started November 2013. Gamers (can I still say that?) are obsessed with breaking things down into managable chunks. There's grey areas here too.
Also this who casual market thing is odd. These are people too right. They have their owne established values and aren't fumbling their way onto expensive new consoles then turning around and saying 'These games are sexist!'. The vast majority of games don't post on forums or engage like this... in fact most just play games and that's it.
And frankly people should be more critical of the sources of these discussions. Games are absoluelty going through a cultural transition, but there's a lot of misplace chivalry going on too. And it's also possible to find Anita Sarkeesian's video ill-informed and poorly reasoned (not to mention featuring plagiarised works) and still think that sexism in games is an issue.
tl;dr Games have had sexism issues long before the launch of the Xbox One/PS4.