What's the most annoying nitpick you've hear about a game you enjoy?

For me, I once heard someone say they dislike going so fast and wondered why we have to...and their should be other options for people who dont wanna do that all the time.

We were playing burnout...in a car race against the first or second race in the game.

Sadly I ate crow since racing games now allow you to somehow...do other things if you dont like racing XD.

• Pretty much any thing related to the Souls series and souls-likes (expect for The Bed of Chaos, though I've done enough bitching about that over the years).
• The FMVs in Need for Speed 2015, as if the "characters" in Forza Horizon are any less corny.
• "Backtracking" in Devil May Cry 4.
• PC gaming having a high barrier of entry in terms of know-how. It's not the 90's or 2000's anymore. You don't have to be a turbo nerd in order to figure out component compatibility and drivers anymore.
• Various complaints about Pokemon Sword and Shield.
• The oni, yoki and environmental designs of Nioh 1 and 2. The game play with Japanese folklore. What the fuck did you expect? Does everything really need to be Ghost of Tsushima?
• Describing games with an anime aesthetic and qualities as being "anime" ...like, no shit Sherlock. Dictionary.com and Thesaurus.com literally exist. Use some new fucking words.
• "Does [name of an older game] hold up in [current year]?"
• Various jabs at Kingdom Hearts over the past 12 years.
• Comments about Hot Wheels and Legos not belonging in Forza Horizon.

I have a feeling that I'll be editing this post a lot when I find more complaints to vent about.

Recently, people hating on the classic Sonic games for petty reasons, like having to stop and actually think and do platforming and attacking enemies. They expect Sonic to just breeze through the levels at top speed with nothing getting in his way and call the game bad because they can't do this. Hilarious.

I suppose you could also phrase this question as "What's the dumbest hot take about a video game you can think of?"

I immediately thought of what has to be the most facepalm-inducing video game review I've ever read. It was a review of Borderlands 2 in the Wall Street Journal (who knew they did game reviews? I guess we now know why, because they suck at it). Basically the guy said Borderlands 2 was bad because it was an FPS that wasn't like Call of Duty. That's literally it. Which makes about as much sense as giving an apple a negative review score because it isn't an orange.

I don't care that you like Call of Duty better than Borderlands 2, you have to meet the game you're reviewing on its own terms. Borderlands 2 wasn't *trying and failing* to do what Call of Duty does, it was *trying to do something else entirely*. Saying that one type/genre of game is inherently better than another is just moronic.

Which I suppose is not entirely unlike the opening example of someone complaining about a racing game where cars are going fast. You can not like something due to your personal tastes, but not every game has to be for you. I don't like RTS games, but you don't see me sitting around whining that they're bad just because they're trying to be the type of game that they are.

@facelessvixen: Oh man. I'm not even a gigantic fan of DMC4 (it might be my least favorite of the "good" DMC games [which just means all of them except for DMC2, I guess]) and the backtracking complaint pisses me off every time. Yes, you literally play through the entire game in reverse, but it is with a completely different character who has completely different mechanics. How is that any different than simply having multiple playable characters?

Few things will get me to clench my jaw and gnash my teeth more than calling something a "God of War clone." Lords of Shadow, Bayonetta, and God of War may all share the same genre, but holy shit do all three of them not play anything alike. That statement is flat out wring and it's also one of the laziest ways to critique a video game, so it is grating on multiple fronts.

Nothing specific is springing to mind at the moment but I find myself disagreeing with almost every complaint lobbed against Final Fantasy 7 Remake. I will absolutely give you that that game is a sequel and not a remake, however, so it's fair if you were legit pissed off that you were lied to.

People saying the map in Hollow Knight is bad. You get the ability to place tokens on it to mark it (like you would in BotW or Elden Ring) and you can just buy and use the Compass Charm if you can't keep track of where you are. I think the map is perfect for what the game is, which is a Metroidvania with heavy emphasis on exploring the unknown.

Anyone that says "style over substance" about anything. Style is substance.

Never understood the hate for tank controls in early 3D games like Resident Evil, and in fact I prefer to play with tank controls in the remakes that have directional controls as an added option. It is a superior way to play games that have changing cameras as opposed to strictly behind the back camera. Devil May Cry tried to fix that by keeping your forward momentum when changing camera angles but I found that to not work well enough. I think you need to have a pretty narrow view of video games to think that there can only be one control scheme that all games need to adhere to.

Speaking of Resident Evil, complaints about item box and the typewriter save system. So it's not realistic, but who cares?

"It doesn't do anything new"

It happens frequently, even with seasoned reviewers here at GB, and uttered as they dismiss the game forever even though the game might execute everything perfectly and do it better than any game prior. My counter argument is that it doesn't have to do anything new, because by the same token you could say SMW isn't worth your time since it doesn't do anything new and simply iterates over all the new ideas SMB3 brought to the table.

• Whenever anyone describes a game as being “like Skyrim” or “Skyrim but better” when the only thing it has in common with Skyrim is being open world and having a fantasy setting. If anyone apart from Bethesda has actually made a game that even tried to be an Elder Scrolls-style sandbox, let alone executed the formula better than Bethesda, I have yet to see it.
• Complaints about Dishonored having consequences for going on murder sprees. It’s almost like unfettered violence not necessarily solving problems is a major theme of the game and the mechanics do an excellent job of reinforcing that. I genuinely think the comparatively lukewarm critical reactions to Dishonored and Prey versus the fairly rapturous reception of Deathloop proves that a large swath of the gaming critical class don’t actually care about “ludonarrarive dissonance” or actually want games to have choices that matter in meaningful ways.
• Complaints about Red Dead Redemption 2 being slow and animation heavy and not prioritizing “fun” in its mechanics (see also: Death Stranding). You can dislike how it plays, certainly, but its mechanics are well considered for the type of game it is trying to be and far from a failure of design. It’s like going to see Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy and complaining that it’s not a Bond movie, or Pig and complaining that it’s not like John Wick.
• Complaints from reviewers about recent Assassin’s Creed games being too big. I can understand the critique from the standpoint of someone who has to grind out a review in two weeks to meet an embargo, but that’s not reflective of 99.999% of players’ experience. The scope of Origins, Odyssey and Valhalla coupled with the live service-lite design encourages them to be leisurely enjoyed over the course of months instead of being binged. They fill the same slot in my life that MMOs do for other people and they work really, really well in that regard.
• Speaking of Assassin's Creed, complaints about game mechanics in a franchise from people who clearly haven't played anything recent in the series annoy me to no end. For example, in all the Elden Ring Discourse, I saw a number of posts criticizing the level scaling in recent AC games as an example of bad design compared to From's approach. I don't remember how it worked in Origins, but in Odyssey and Valhalla, level scaling is optional and adjustable, as is how much guidance you want in terms of quest objectives and open world markers. I generally feel like the quote about Twitter being a place where people imagine a guy, trick themselves into believing that guy exists, and then getting angry at that guy often seems to apply to a lot of game debates too.

Ppl call me a pervert cuz I play lewd games, which is not only annoying but hurtful.

I always understood that the negative consequences for killing people in Dishonored games was meant to be a sort of theme for the franchise, but I strongly disagree with the idea that the mechanics reinforce that. In the first Dishonored game, the majority of the tools at your disposal are intended for lethal playthroughs. A pacifist run of Dishonored 1 is, to be blunt, fucking boring. Instead, players like me gravitated towards the playstyles that they found more fun and then the game slapped them on the wrist for it. It's like someone offering you ice cream and then berating you for eating something with little nutritional value. Dishonored 2 is a lot better about this but it's hardly good. If they wanted to reinforce the idea that violence isn't the best solution for any given problem, then they shouldn't have made violence the best solution for any given problem. I suppose here is where I should clarify that I still think Dishonored is a franchise deserving of far more recognition than it ever got, I just think the way it handled morality is a massive Achilles' heel.

...for Prey, though, I'm at a complete loss as to why that game didn't light the games journalism or whatever world on fire.

To actually answer the thread, though... I think the complaints about Doom Eternal "forcing" you to exploit enemy weaknesses all the time are way overblown. For one, there aren't actually that many enemy weaknesses in the game. For two, if you don't want to kill Cacodemons with the grenade launcher, you don't have to. You can happily blast it with rockets or the Super Shotgun or whatever, even on higher difficulties. Don't worry about ammo, you have essentially unlimited ammo, just find an imp or zombie and push the chainsaw button and you'll get a pinata of free ammo. You do have to change things up, you can't use just one gun the entire game, but you still have tons of room for doing your own thing.

Marauders still suck, however. They change up the gameplay in a way that highlights all of its weaknesses and kneecaps all of its impressive strengths. The DLC also introduces a bunch of mean and unfair encounters and enemy types for the sake of upping difficulty in a way that isn't fun at all. Fuck you, stone imps, and whoever came up with the cursed prowlers should be fired and never allowed to design anything in a video game ever again.

oooh this is a very good one!

hmm- maybe most recently for me it's players that play Horizon Forbidden West using only one weapon/ammo type and describe the combat as one-dimensional. i get it- people like to optimize for the path of least resistance- but my god does that undersell a game that both enables and rewards players being creative in enemy counters.

The Map in Hollow Knight is great. It's very satisfying to fill out and there's a ton of useful tools to get for it.

Now the Charm system where one of them is TIED to the map... load of shit.

If I had a big nitpick or pet peeve it's not tied to a SPECIFIC game but rather a journalism throwaway criticism of "It doesn't respect the players time..."

@justin258: I agree it's a little too "gotcha" about it and I understand why it landed sour with a lot of players (the "REVENGE SOLVES EVERYTHING" marketing certainly didn't help either). But the lethal approach being so much more fun and direct compared to nonlethal is exactly why I think it works so well as a thematic tool. Doing good is more often than not a tedious, thankless process, and seeing a game reflect this in an industry that has a tendency to treat all playstyles as equally valid ways to get to any goal remains a rare thing. Does it make for a particularly pleasurable game experience? Well, no. But as my take on Red Dead and Death Stranding indicates, I don't think fun and player gratification should always be the preeminent goal of game design.

I do agree, however, that this probably wasn't totally intentional on Arkane's part, as evidenced by how much stuff they put into D2 to make the low chaos approach a better time. But in an industry where the only difference between an evil playthrough and a good playthrough is typically a few dozen button presses on dialogue wheels, I still think what Dishonored did is cool as hell.

Thesaurus.com doesn't give any synonyms for 'anime'. What other words do you want people to use, 'Japanimation'?

@eccentrix said:

Not literally plugging in "anime" into a thesaurus and using what comes up. What I mean is, describe something like a Tales game, Shin Megami Tensei/Persona, Y's. Final Fantasy, The Legend of Heroes, Suikoden, Phantasy Star, Xenosaga, Disgaea, Star Ocean, etc., without heavily relying on using "anime" as an adjective; like, trying to actually articulate what particularly makes one game or another anime as if nobody knows what anime is; in the similar vein of the Red Letter Media reviews asking people to describe Star Wars characters without deciding their looks or their role in the movies.

Maybe it's just me, but I'm at the point where seeing a blog stat off with "so-and-so is the most anime thing ever" comes off to me as either a played out joke by people over 40 who unironically use the word "Japanimation", or it's just lazy writing that doesn't add much of anything that's informative or useful to a conversation about one game or another.

"It doesn't have real player names." In relation to Pro Evolution Soccer. There have been ways around the licensing for decades.

@facelessvixen: It's ultimately just someone showing that they know little about the thing they're talking about without just saying so outright, and can't be bothered to learn more about it. It's just simple dismissal of the thing in question.

I also roll my eyes pretty hard at the Hollow Knight map complaining. The map being the way it is is the reason why that game's exploration is as good as it is! It encourages learning the environment, and keeping an eye out for secrets, instead of just opening the map every ten seconds, looking for a circle on a square of the map grid.

@facelessvixen: I think it's usually a good shorthand for what anime represents in video games. I can understand wanting additional details, but why not use the word when it fits? Imagine having to explain what a roguelike is every time because you're assuming people don't know what a roguelike is and you think using the term is a lazy cliche.

@eccentrix: If you are telling someone about a game one might think it your job to be more specific.

Otherwise what you are saying doesn't mean anything to anyone at all.

There's still a contigent of Football Manager players that expect the game to have similar graphics as Fifa. While it's always good to see improvements in the graphics, FM is a game that tries to simulate the world of football on a daily ingame basis. That's just not the same gameplay focus as a game like Fifa has, and with their decade-long iterative process, they can't spend a year to throw everything they've built out of the window to chase the visuals of a Fifa. The 3d feed we see is just a visual approximation of what happens on the 2D plane and that can sometimes make things look a bit strange.

I will say that they have made great strides forwards with the latest game in that regard.

@onemanarmyy Text commentary for life.

Recently I would say comments about Elden Ring being too long. I don't understand that when a game like Elden Ring isn't filled with a bunch of dull fetch quests and other filler content. There's plenty of other games out there for $60 that are on the shorter size. A game like Elden Ring is actually few and and far between today. Finally there's plenty of people that want those 50+ hour RPG's and could care less if it takes them a year or two complete at a leisurely pace. Leave it alone lol.

So this doesn't actually answer the question because it's meant to be a positive thing. But boy, does it annoy me when people talk around even the basics of specific games because "Everything in this game is a spoiler! Tee hee!" I saw this recently with the rerelease of The Stanley Parable. I just wanted to know what new content was added but had a real tough time because reviewers were trying to be so cute about spoilers. I think it really limits the space to talk about "mystery games" (Outer Wilds is another example) outside of spoiler threads.

Like some other people said, I also don't like "It's X... but with Y" as I think it diminishes whatever Y is doing. Yeah, there are obvious examples of inspiration everywhere, but those comments are still pretty obvious low-hanging fruit.

@jeremyf: All things regarding how precious people are about spoilers is a pet peeve of mine.

It's something I have had to let go though because apparently everyone else cares deeply about them.

@jeremyf: The worst part of comparisons is it makes the new game seem lesser, or not original...then you play it, and the added mechanics that make it different literally...make it different, so much so that the game is unique and needed an explanation without the degrading or reductionist take that it's just like another game but has like one mechanic that makes it special. Even more silly when people finally find a trailer for a new game or play a game and can't compare it to anything so they somehow sound annoyed since it has no close comparisons...the whole while people always request games be different and out there. I saw that a lot with prerelease death stranding...like no one could put their finger on what the game was, so they kinda got annoyed in comment sections of different sites. Then it was released and it kinda didn't fit any specific category done before but people pulled to say its just ___ with ___ mechanic and called it a day which made it seem way less than it was (overlooking gameplay story etc) it was just a different game and that was fine. Not saying it was good or bad, revolutionary or not, just a game that for what it's worth, we didn't get a lot of before flooding the market doing package deliveries with that specific gameplay and whatnot.

I remember seeing people simultaneously complaining about this and also complaining that there weren't bows with tear ammo easily available like they were in the first game (and the tear ammo being way more limited and expensive to produce). The tear bows in the first game were borderline broken and trivialized parts of the combat once you got them so it made sense they wanted to make the most easily abusable part of combat less able to be abused so that people would actually use the weapon element system.

For sure. Some people still talk as if it's still some incredibly difficult task to plan and build a PC when there's mountains of tools and resources that allow you to plan a build in like 10 minutes and know everything will work together. Not only that but the components and cases are now designed with usability in mind and have better documentation so it's easier to build the PC itself now. I've found most of the people who still talk like this are either weird elitists who feel the need to lord their fancy PC over people or people trying to sell PC building services that are trying to convince people they need the help.

Some Elden Ring discussions have generally annoyed me. I’m not overly against Souls games having an easy mode, so I won’t complain about that, but hearing people think they can just jump in blind and not get any guidance when they’re having a hard time just gets to me for some reason. There are tools to help you get through these games, especially Elden Ring.

Game length has also been mentioned, I only have issues with it when the story or game design doesn’t warrant it, I thought The Last of Us II was too long for example despite liking it. But, this complaint on podcasts is the modern version of podcasters complaining that friends lists were limited back in the day, games being too long is a non issue for most players.

@eccentrix said:

I imagine that to someone who only watched whatever shows up on Netflix's and Crunchyroll's most viewed sections, the notion of using "anime" as merely a genre tag for games seems reasonable. But as someone who doesn't watch the most popular titles and goes against the popular opinion in certain cases, I need more than just the shorthand description; not of what anime is or what the current troupes are, but actual descriptions of the story, characters and gameplay, especially if the writer is going to use persuasive language; which is the root problem that I see with certain write-ups because I see their disposition more than I see details about the game.

For example: If someone is just going to describe Tales of Arise and Scarlet Nexus as being "the most anime games to have ever anime'd" with the intent of persuading of dissuading other people to buy the games or not, I can't take their recommendation seriously if that's the depth of their writing efforts. However, if the intention is to be informal and that is clearly conveyed, then that's fine. I may agree or disagree in more ways than one, but I understand the intention of just writing for the sake of having the hobby. But I've seen quite a few posts over the years that read as "You should or shouldn't like this game because of how I feel about it."I didn't think too much of posts like that back on GameTrailers in 2007 where I was as young and dumb as everyone else on the site. But with this site, with people being a bit older and my assumption that mostly everyone is on the same page as for what subjectivity is and how to present it, especially with those who love writing... well, either I'm misunderstanding their intentions, or maybe my criticisms are valid.

Nah, you just need to spend 3 times what a console player does for the same experience

You sound like someone who's never had a gaming PC. I kind of envy you.

I've been PC gaming for 20 years, doesn't mean it isn't expensive

I kind of doubt that if you think you're getting the same experience as a console player. Maybe you've been using the same PC for 20 years?

It's like saying why buy a Ferrari Roma when you can get the same experience with a Ford Mustang.

Game length is a weird one. If I'm enjoying a game, it doesn't bother me. Even with other games like Yakuza, I get to the point where I can mainline the story and cut the thing short. Those feel like the two best outcomes. Elden Ring has a lot of loot completely irrelevant to my build but I still like discovering them. It's the idea that the thing I pick up might be important.

That said, I still haven't played Persona 3 or 5 because I know I'm in for 100+ hours and most of that will be dialogue.

When it comes to game length the matter is simple, if I'm going to spend $70 dollars or close to it on a game, I want my money's worth. And to me that is a game at least 40-100 hours. A game that cost nearly $100 dollars, but only has a game length of 4-8 hours is a ripoff to me, but of course there are exceptions to everything. The Yakuza games, and Persona games, Final Fantasy games, etc are examples of great games that are worth the price because they are long and entertaining throughout. Even if I don't finish everything there is to do in those games, just knowing the content is there to get back to is good enough.

Even the Assassin Creed games can be this way when done right. Valhalla (IMO) was one of their best entries. It takes between 50-60 hours to finish the story and a lot of extra stuff that is actually fun to do, like the Viking raids and the Pagan boss fights which they expanded upon with DLC updates. I haven't played the game since finishing the story, but knowing those things are there to return to is what I'm talking about.

So here are my thoughts at the moment:

The Gran Turismo series' current single-player career mode race format is about the players starting from the back of the pack while they must overtake their opponents one by one before taking the checkered flag in Ridge Racer/Daytona USA style, except drifting, so to me, this is not acceptable for Simcade standards plus it will be a lot better if it has the same race format as the real world of motorsport racing.

Right

@shindig: For the Persona series, not to mention that those who personally don't like supernatural & bizarre things, may not be able to enjoy playing them.

I have friends that call out anything in a movie or game etc as ridiculous and stupid if there is any fantasy element. Even something with a twist that you know...everything or almost anything uses to make their medium unique they call out. Steampunk world...this is stupid nonsense, a world with unique animals, dumb, a world where people all speak another language, tedious, a world where the war (a real one) is fought and filmed in one take that Nolan one, This is dumb how can he go that far in one go...lame, etc. I sometimes wonder how they enjoy anything fiction related but I know there are people who hate fiction, also people who hate certain types of fiction (Japanese like persona series, etc.) So I'm starting to get it. But yeah the nitpicks for that come down to I don't like this cause it exists. Still wonder what fiction they'd enjoy, and if they would get mad cause there is no hook, maybe a romance but they get mad if the romance isn't realistic, no jokes or silly meet-ups or quirkiness involved. They still enjoy interviews and reality tv sometimes cause they don't have to pay complete attention. Somehow they think, horizon zero dawn, red dead redemption 2, GTA 5, etc has bad acting and graphics. Maybe they're all just from the future XD and nothing compares. Think how bored someone today flung to the past would be watching batman forever.

@sombre said:

Thus why I only mentioned "terms of know-how," as in how knowledgeable someone has to be for either putting a desktop together or picking a laptop that could meet their demands. Not wanting to spend $1,500 to just play games is understandable. My beef is with the technophobes who just want to whine, bitch and moan.

I take note of your posts as well. I know better than to argue about the difference in experiences with someone who is disillusioned with modern games.

Anytime a classic game like FF7 is called overrated.

A couple i'm stealing from other people, that the early Sonic games are bad and that the "backtracking" in DMC4 ruins the game, also i pay three times more for a PC but i'm doing a hundred times more stuff with it.

As for new ones... hmm...

• MGS4 has too many cutscenes
• ToeJam and Earl 2 is bad just because it's a platformer
• Dead or Alive 5/6 has too much dlc (just don't buy it?)
• Dynasty Warriors (not 9) is fun and the soundtracks are great

-People shitting on the fighting in games like Strangers of Paradise while ignoring half of the mechanics.

-Whenever someone reduces Tetsuya Nomura to 'lol belts'. He started with designing monsters in FFV and have been delivering a TRUCKLOAD of classic designs and video games since then. There have been missteps (Dirge of Cerberus, Versus 13) but the man has been involved with some of my favorite games and designed characters I will never forget, and has done so for for more than half my life.

-On that note, people being too harsh on the Kingdom Hearts games' gameplay and story. I have a soft spot for them (not counting the mobile ones) because 1) The music is fantastic. 2) The gameplay is fun, especially in KH2. 3) The story and dialogue are (generally) enjoyable to me because they are 100% devoid of sarcasm and irony, and are instead absolutely sincere, almost to a fault. I think that's refreshing. I love the camaraderie of the main trio, and the sections that involve Winnie the Pooh are so wholesome you almost forget about the terrible behemoth that is Disney. And if you actually play the games in order the story is perfectly followable, even of it's obvious Nomura just makes stuff up as the story progresses. But that's in no way unique to these games.

Whenever I replay KH1 and 2, I never skip any of the cutscenes. So there :p

Edit: KH3 was kind of a letdown in some ways but running around in Andy's room in the Toy Story world, and the forest in Tangled was simply a joyful experience, and I'm happy it exists.

People that treat PC gaming like it’s not anchor putter equivalent. Sure you’re putting but it really isn’t in the spirit of the game.

Friends that didn’t totally transition into PUBG on Xbox yet they have carried on complaining and playing COD or even worse they find Fortnite revolutionary.

@theonewhoplays said:

This can go in my original post as well. Making fun of Kingdom Hearts is a dead horse that died even before I joined this site. The body has gone cold. The skin and muscles have fully decayed. And the bones have completely weathered into dust. Yet, people still think they're being clever, witty, or better yet, insightful.

And then you have your people who, supposedly, played 1, 2 and 3 but ignored Birth By Sleep and Dream Drop Distance.

I remember seeing a number of people accuse Kena: Bridge of Spirits as being incredibly simple in combat, some variation of all you do is press R1, R2 and dodge incoming attacks. Forgoing that it has a pretty fun if limited set of skill moves and a parry system involving its shield that I admit being pretty good at forgetting about, I couldn't help but think..."that's how I play Bloodborne, too." It seemed like a strange critique that mapped onto the "PS2 throwback" comment out of convenience, and while I also disagreed that Kena was some kind of retro game (it was small but felt quite modern to me, it just looks like those old games) that comment always stuck in my craw a bit. Even if you were far better at the game than me and didn't find it nearly as challenging, mechanically the combat didn't feel any simpler than a number of modern games doing third person, pattern based melee combat in the late 2010s.

Even though I can't play the games anymore for me it's people complaining Monster Hunter is so punishing and slow, and that there's no health bar. The games are like that because they want you to watch and learn the monster's behaviour and find your opportunities; you're not the star of the show, the monster is! The lack of health bar is only relevant if you think of the bossfights as punctuation. The harrowing of a great beast and improvisation when things go wrong without knowing if you'll get through in time is the whole point of this extreme sports pruning!

Also when people complained about the main gameplay of Death Stranding. I enjoyed that game most when I was trying to navigate and manage inventory; my enjoyment stopped every time someone decided to open their mouth to tell me a great philosophical thought Kojima had or there was a mandatory combat sequence. I love Kojima's bonkers stories but for me it feels like the pacing suffers when he's not got the constraints of someone who can say no to him.

Every time someone is upset with me for not being down for every horny thing in a videogame, too. I get that sex sells salaciously and some of this stuff hits for me and some of it doesn't but it feels like folks bring it in nonstop even if the game doesn't, these days. I have yet to play the new XIV alliance raid without someone shouting "MOMMY."

Also like every instance of folks saying you didn't get the real experience of X if you didn't experience it their specific way.

I feel like the idea of these being nitpicks got lost somewhere.

Jeff claiming that Hollow Knight's art looks like a 90s flash game has always confused me. Its art is so much more detailed and polished.