@jeff You can't equip that sword because it's the sword that you're using as your familiar If you change to a different familiar you can then equip that sword. EDIT: And someone mentioned this on the stream. Guess I should have watched more of the video.
@benpack You get unique shards from beating those optional bosses.
Am I the only one that didn't mind the character paintings of Kickstarter Backers? Chances are they would have just littered the castle with the same few paintings over and over otherwise. This way it's really varied. It's not like they just put actual photos of the people in there, they went and made them look like paintings in period appropriate garb...
If this game had not been Kickstarted and that was just paintings of the Devs instead, I get the feeling no one would have bitched about them, might have even called it a 'cool easter egg'...
I really don't get the "it's a backdoor sequel to Link to the Past" comments (Ben is far from the only one saying this). I mean, yeah, the graphics are there, but it still plays like Necrodancer, when people were saying you could turn the rhythm stuff off I'd assumed it would play more like Zelda instead of just a faster Necrodancer. Other than yeah, the graphics, I just don't see it as a 'backdoor' sequel. Especially when everyone's complaints are there's not enough dungeons and they're just combat heavy, not many puzzles etc...
@notnert427: As I said (but didn't go into the detail of because my post was already long) in my posts, I get that it's because of the way they chose/have to approach Back Compatibility, IE emulation instead of hardware. My issue is with his claim that they need to license the games to make them backwards compatible. They only need the license to re-sell them. They could just make it run off the disc without putting it on the store, or downloading anything, but they don't. My issue isn't even the way they do it, it's the PR spin of saying "we're not doing any more backwards compatible games because licensing", as I said above, twice, just say the truth. His obvious PR excuse on the Back Compatibility made me side eye everything else he said, because he didn't just come out and say the truth.
I'm fine with them making money off it. My issue isn't the reality of the situation, it's wholly blaming licensing for it. I certainly don't expect them to give games away digitally to people who didn't previously purchase them, but that's not my issue. They don't NEED licensing to make games they can't license to make a game backwards compatible, it's a convenient excuse instead of just saying something along the lines of "We don't think it's worth the cost of making the remaining games backwards compatible off the disc alone because we wouldn't recoup the development cost on the emulator to do so. To recoup that cost we'd have to sell most, if not all of those games and we don't think they'd recoup the cost because they're too niche or the licensing is too costly to be worth it." But that's not PR to ever refer to the money reality of the situation, so instead it's just 'licensing is just impossible to get the other games". As I said in my first post, it's about them saying one thing, when it's actually another that they'd rather not just admit to, IE "pissing in my face and telling me it's raining".
@blackpuma: You misunderstand. They didn't make it so you could blanket run every game, they do it by a game by game basis and they only do it once they get permission from the game maker to sell it again on Xbox Marketplace. Yes, we can put the disc in for games that they've licensed and play it, but that is only a (very welcome and nice) concedence by them and a byproduct selling it on the store.
My point is he complains that Microsoft needs to license the games to make them backwards compatible and that's NOT true, they only need that licensing to sell the games again.
There's a big difference between re-licensing a game for sale on GOG or XBox Marketplace, and just making it so people can still use the discs they already own as opposed to ones for sale on XBox Marketplace.
I hate Phil claiming it's a licensing issue to backcompat all games. That's a bullshit excuse. They don't want to get games working unless they can make money for it. That's the reason so SAY IT. As the saying goes, don't "piss in my face and tell me it's raining".
The Wii managed to do it, the PS2 and 3 managed to do it, the Wii-U managed to do it, the Gameboy line and DS line all managed to do it, all without licensing deals. They COULD make them run off the discs, but it's not economically viable to do so in their opinions (partially because of the way they have to approach BC), so just SAY that.
I really need to get back to it so I can't talk about the entire show, but the first season of Ash VS the Evil Dead was excellent. So no @brad, I disagree, they should not have stopped Evil Dead after Army of Darkness.
I think the argument of 'is X political' comes down to this...
When people say they don't want games to be political, they don't mean the philosophical concept of politics, they mean they don't want actual politics (usually western) in their games. They mean literal references to specific figures, "hanging chads" or "building a wall". They mean direct references to (usually) modern politics with a wink and a nod and a "know what I mean". It's entirely about how subtle the politics are or if it's delivered with a sledgehammer.
As much as nothing else about MGS is subtle, it's politics usually are. It's something more philisophical and usually something that no one really disagrees with like 'child soldiers are bad' or 'we have too many nukes'. Even then, those two things aren't referencing anything very specific, more about concepts and philosophy.
I also hate when people claim everything is political when that's not what is being complained about. No one complained about GoT being political because it wasn't about our world's government. Geoffry wasn't, for example, a thinly veiled allegory for Bush, he was just an asshole kid in charge. Of course there are politics in the book/series, it's basically what they're about, political infighting.
The reason people cringe at things like calls for Farcry 5 or The Division to be more political is because when the call for that goes out, it's usually people who people want these things to give their specific opinions about a situation and direct confrontation of current issues. If the game ISN'T taking sides or bothering to inject current issues into the game like those who call for it to do so, they opine that it's not 'political enough' because they brought to it the hope that it would bring their modern politics into it and do it in an overt way that makes them feel vindicated in their own opinion.
Many people use games to escape the real world for a short while, to NOT think about how fucked things are, so when they say they don't want politics in games, they mean the obvious sledgehammery references, not just the concepts of politics and philosophy.
Crazy that they seem to think the swiping on the trackpad for different menus is a new thing... I don't know where it started but I definitely remember Witcher 3 doing just that.
synthesis_landale's comments