YukoAsho's comments

Posted by YukoAsho

@yukoasho: Thanks for the correction, but I chose the word licensed because I don't think "branded" or any similar word easily conveys what I mean and because even though I'm aware WB own the DC license, they're still allowing NetherRealm use of that license, and so in that sense I think it is a licensed game. I'd also like to say that I think the traditional problems with licensed games go way beyond certain devs just not caring about the franchises they're working with. I appreciate the comment though.

Well, you're half right. Another part of it is that, since games licensed out to different studios are often directly tied into something else, and especially with movie games, Hollywood is psychotically intent on keeping things from leaking (and game developers aren't trustworthy for keeping secrets inside), which messes up the ability to make a story.

However, the biggest issue with licensed games is that they live and die by the license. One of the best games of the last decade, The Chronicles of Riddick: Escape From Butcher Bay, sold poorly because no one gives a fuck about Riddick, while the poorly-made Batman Begins (from before Warner going all-in on video games) did pretty decently, playing on the strength of the franchise.

See, the issue with licensed games is that, since the licensee has no control over the overall fate of the franchise, it makes no sense to try. A bad game with a good license will sell infinitely better than an awesome game with a bad license, as Riddick's unfortunate performance proves.

tl;dr version - It's a fucking tie-in product usually. No different from a t-shirt or a mug. Why the hell would you spend the money and the effort if it's not your IP and you have no control over its overall success or failure? It's part of why Strauss Zelnick has never taken 2K into license territory, and why comic book games all sucked until Warner started doing them in-house. Injustice wasn't a tie-in game to something else, but its own contribution to the overall brand, and unlike Sega, WB has a vested interest in making sure things with keeping quality.

Now do not get me wrong, I understand fully where you're coming from. 90% of the time, I avoid games that have other IPs on the box on principle, for the reasons outlined above. I just think it's important that everyone understands why Arkham and Injustice aren't falling into the trap. It's an important discussion to have with regards to game quality in the overall "licensed" space, and why these series rise so far above what we expect. You're never going to get an Injustice or Arkham quality experience out of a Marvel IP because Disney's been running away from core games at full speed since the failure of Split/Second and the Turok reboot, and you're not going to get quality out of an outside developer unless they contribute in their own IP.

Edited by YukoAsho

I hate the stripper approach to female character design.

To be fair, and this is unfortunate, this is also how comic book women are designed. And it's because the fans revolt if they're dressed up. Don't believe me? There was a HUGE shitstorm when Wonder Woman was given a jacket and pants (If you have the GOTY version or the appropriate DLC, it's the "#600" costume).

The costume that sent the comic nerds rioting in the street.

Posted by YukoAsho

A minor correction. Injustice isn't a "licensed" title, at least not in the way we traditionally associate the term. Warner Bros. owns the DC universe, and also owns Netherrealm. It's not a property they're whoring out to some publisher who otherwise doesn't care like so many others, but an internal project by people with a vested interest in seeing all products with the brand name be good. This is also why Warner-owned Rocksteady has produced to kick-ass Arkham games. Moral of the story, if movie and comic book companies want quality games based on their IPs, they need to do the work themselves.

Posted by YukoAsho

First off, watching this makes me realize how silly people who call baseball ponderous are. Seriously, you want ponderous, here you fucking go.

That said, I don't get why this was pulled. I mean, it's not GREAT, and the animations are odd, but it doesn't seem to be the sort of unplayable mess one would expect to see when hearing a game got yanked off a service. I was expecting a WarZ level trainwreck, not a kinda bad sports game...

Edited by YukoAsho

"Dragon, meet rider."

And with that, Patrick made the whole damned Quick Look.

Posted by YukoAsho

How did no one mention how ugly this game is? Even for a 360 game this wouldn't be acceptable, but for an Xbox One game? Holy crap, I'm shocked by how bad this looks.

I was about to say that it was originally a 360 game and that it's coming there later, but yeah... Maybe this would be acceptable on PS2... Maybe...

Posted by YukoAsho

@tidel said:

Within its long-running franchises, Nintendo takes risks, more than any other studio in any other franchise. Every Halo game is the same. Every Call of Duty. Every Uncharted. Refined, sure, with some new bits, but nothing on the level of a Galaxy, or a Metroid Prime, or a Wind Waker. All established franchises, all games that could have been new IP for all they broke from tradition.

No, not everything Nintendo puts out holds this up -- the 'New' Mario games are fairly tired, and Mario Kart hasn't had a new idea since Double Dash, which everyone except me hated, apparently. But more often than not, it does.

People seem to tell themselves a lot of lies about the nature of Nintendo games. It's weird. You say they get slack (actually, you say that you 'refuse to turn a blind eye' like Nintendo is perpetrating some great crime and you are the one lone voice brave enough to stand against their tyranny of not doing what you think they should be doing, which is as stupid as it is offensive), but your 'argument' here is as rote as anything you accuse Nintendo of. Every Nintendo game comes out to this same fanfare. The moaning of the nerds; "Nintendo is franchises! Nintendo is boring!" But they aren't.

I do share a wish for Nintendo to make new IP. But I don't accuse what they are currently doing as somehow 'less-than' because it might be dressed up in familiar trappings. As a development house, they are as creative as ever. I just want more.

I don't know, I saw a whole lot of Mario 64 in the Sunshine and Galaxy games, and Zelda has been creatively frozen since Ocarina, despite Aonuma continually telling us that, no, this next game's going to shake the foundations.

Really, Nintendo hasn't introduced anything in the way of memorable new game mechanics since Wii Sports (take it or leave it).

And yet, you and many others praise them as paragons of innovation even while slagging off Bungie, Naughty Dog, IW/Treyarch, and the lot of them who also iterate more than they innovate. If there wasn't an obvious double standard, I wouldn't be having this conversation. If gamers who claimed to want creativity didn't jizz all over themselves at a glorified LttP expansion pack, none of thise would matter. I love the games, but I'm not going to fall into the trap of worshipping them as anything more than another gaming development house.

Who knows, maybe 30 years from now people will be holding the companies we're slagging today as gaming gods through the sheer, unrelenting force of nostalgia.

Posted by YukoAsho

Well, that's actually a plus. Madden 06 had stuff ripped out from the previous generation's iterations, so at least it seems like EA is learning.

Posted by YukoAsho

I will be playing the hell out of this game.

I will not be doing so in multiplayer.

Edited by YukoAsho

@brackynews said:

@yukoasho: Unless you bought a Virtual Boy, I'm not sure anyone has the right to complain about Nintendo's originality. Neither can you ignore that the hardware exists to cultivate and promote originality. Would Hotel Dusk exist without the DS? I don't think it would have any impact as a browser game. I just bought Jason Rohrer's game pack on DSiWare and love having it. That motherfucker made a diamond trading simulator and self published it. Nintendo has the indie juice.

For software (developing and publishing), they roll the dice and win so many times, but they do it by not betting their cachet of good will every single year. Metroid Prime, big hit; Other M, not so much. Epic Yarn, the pinnacle of Kirby. Skyward Sword, tutorial city. Kid Icarus' reboot actually worked out, and it took them forever. For chrissake they put out a 4-minute garden simulation that is actually a modicum of entertainment. Tell me the last time the system music or audio on a handheld wasn't delightful and iconic. It can't be done, because they have the best people doing it. Donkey Kong, Pikmin, Fire Emblem, Layton, Mario (Galaxy, Paper, & Luigi, etc.), all of which are still increasingly good through iteration. Variety does not sacrifice originality. Don't treat video games like a junkie who has built up immunity to sequels, you're going to miss out on good stuff.

The problem with wanting NEW_IP_TITLE_2013, is that we all hope it will be so good that we'll naturally want another. And then next time we complain when they choose a sequel over NEW_IP_TITLE_2015. We should stop doing that, because it implies quantity over quality, and when the most played Nintendo games boil down to the same half-dozen Nintendo and Mario releases, we prove that quality is what makes Nintendo games worth replaying.

I'm not going to argue with iteration, it clearly has its place. However, the last new IP from the former kinds was Pikmin. They just... Stopped after that, content to drill 20+ year old franchises through the dirt. Iteration is fine, but when companies that have franchises that haven't been around as long and have shown consistent improvement get ripped to shreds for sequelitis, the double-standard given to Nintendo is nothing short of revolting.

Note: I'm not saying these games are bad. Hell no, I'm gonna be picking up Super Mario 3D World and Link Between Worlds as soon as I'm able. Probably not at the same time as I need to start buying Christmas gifs, but I'll have them both by year's end. They look hella fun. But they also look practiced, rote, expected. Nintendo hasn't taken a chance on software in years, and while their games are still awesome, I refuse to turn a blind eye to the fact that they get away with things that the rest of this industry would be eviscerated on the internet for.