The aesthetic treatment of these games is so wonderful. The artwork has a very 60s-70s cartoon feel, reinforced by the (intentionally?) skippy frames in the animation. It's such a unique look.
I don't think I'll ever approve of non-fighting game guest characters. They never seem to be anything other than an extremely cheap and lame way for a game to garner more interest.
I'm torn. I love the idea of things like Predator and Alien in MKX. For KI, their whole aesthetic is so zany and fragmented that it seems like you can hardly hurt the "lore." (I mean that in a non-judgmental way.)
I am interested in this because the design and concepts look really compelling, but they seem dumped into plain, boxy environments with what looks like sorta-kinda boring combat. Has anyone actually played it who can offer insight?
I think this could have been inspired by the souls games while at the same time not aping from them so gratuitously.
It's definitely it's own thing. Souls games have turned into a genre. You can build a game around the basics of the genre and still be a completely different thing. It's how games have been developed since the dawn of time.
There is difference between basics of a genre and copying almost every single system+UI.
These are all good observations, and something I've been thinking about a lot. Here is my hypothesis for tracing a game practices as they become popular and turn into genre or style:
When a game does something noteworthy that catches on, a few (or a lot of) entries will shamelessly lift concepts/mechanics/UI elements. Some signals will be left in gratuitously specifically to imply where they came from and what to expect. (Font treatment, UI elements, cosmetic affectations.)
Then, for a sort of limbo season until a genre name is coined and popularized, they stop being seen as a total ripoff, but will be described as "____-y." ("Dark Soulsy.") Some legitimacy is perceived, but there's still no question about where the fundamentals came from.
Once a genre name is in broad usage and accepted--however long that takes--nobody says things like "God of War clone" but rather "character action."
@ravey: These are all really crucial points that I struggle with, especially with balancing negativity and criticism. Just imagine me quoting every paragraph you just wrote and adding an emphatic "THIS" at the end.
I'm interested, though, in the sort of renaissance person mind that has the talent and gumption to not just do all the parts of a game, but also to do a good job at their own PR, and to succeed where bulky organizations can't, choked by their own approval processes and bloat.
My brain leans heavily to the creative side, and it seems to suffer equally on the logical, mathematical side of things, so phenomena like this are kind of a marvel to me.
Thanks the QL! And also the discussion in the comments is appreciated as someone with no experience with Animal Crossing or Harvest Moon.
This was a valuable examination for me because I think it's convinced me not to purchase it. I was really close to picking it up based on the hype alone, but look what it does to people showing off the game--"This thing, no wait this thing, no wait this thing!"
Instead of the sort of "productivity engine" that some games excel at, this looks like a series of distractions interrupting each other. Does that make sense? Is that too harsh? Something's really rubbing me the wrong way.
That said, I have a soft spot for fishing minigames (no idea why) and this looks like some top shelf fishing minigame.
Edit: Not trying to be a negative nelly. I'm fascinated by what I don't understand, and this is no exception.
Besides, in 2016 do you really need to imply that a monarchy is a better form of government, or that some people are just better than others by birth?
...then I'm going to go ahead and say her point is well taken. Fantasy--predicated on being imaginative--can be terribly prone to rote regurgitation, thematically. There's so much great stuff out there, we need not settle.
williamflattener's comments