dreamcrash

Persona 4 back in early November. I almost finished Nocturne a couple weeks ago but the final boss prevented that, just need to do some endgame grinding then I should finish that really soon. I'm also moving through Fates: Conquest at a pretty steady pace. Hoping to get those two finished before Dark Souls III launches!

I've been gaming for most of my life and lurking online communities forever, and I do think there's been an increase in negativity and cynicism. I think anonymity definitely plays a huge role in that. Before it was quite as prevalent as it is now and standard forums like this were the norm, people had reputations and names and generally acted a bit more like they would in real life. Total anonymity allows people to be complete assholes with no repurcussions, and I think that led to a lot of people mouthing off about things and exaggerating them to an extent they otherwise wouldn't have for fear of gaining a reputation as a cynical asshole. As those types of communities have grown, so has that type of behavior, and I think it's leaked across most of the internet at this point. My general approach to it is to just ignore most discussions about a game until I've played it myself and developed my own opinion.

How is everyone missing the other huge reveal in this pic?

I saw the first one, but I don't think I want to see this one. The Hobbit was a fairly short book, especially compared to LotR, and it was partially meant to be a story for Tolkien to read to his children on top of that, if I remember correctly. But it wasn't a "children's story" in the Hollywood sense that's full of absurd one-liners and general idiocy, it was a children's story in the sense that it was filled with wonder and adventure that would captivate the mind of a child, and genuinely fun characters. I really disliked a lot of the characterizations in the first Hobbit film, because they screamed of "We have to make them extra eccentric for the kids to understand", and I really don't like that they made it an entire trilogy. They did a huge disservice to the original book by extending it like that and adding all this nonsense in, in my opinion. A single film that kept the spirit of the book and turned a relatively short but wonder-filled story of adventure into a single wonder-filled fantasy adventure film would have been far, far better. LotR, on the other hand, easily could have been a 6-part film series (with each part being shorter, so each individual film would be better paced) and I would have been all over it, because unlike The Hobbit, it actually has that amount of content, and is a huge saga consisting of many adventures revolving around one main adventure instead of a precisely written tale revolving around one adventure. Reading the Hobbit (and much of LotR), it feels like Tolkien refined his works and, especially in The Hobbit, took care not to waste a single word, describing things exactly as much as they should be and never spending too much time on one thing. Taking that kind of tightly written writing and drawing it out is just a recipe for disappointment.

I've watched a few of your videos now, and I really enjoy them! I do think some of the criticisms you've received in this thread are valid though. You seem to be open to criticism yourself, which is always the mark of a good critic, so that's good! If I could suggest something, it would be to show a little bit more humility when criticizing things. I know that if instead of declaring "This is bad", like it's an objective statement, and instead saying something like "I don't like this" and then explaining why, you'll come across a lot better. Never double back on your own opinions, but always make it clear that they are yours and not an indicator of how something should be thought of overall by everybody. Just some simple wording choices can go a long way! There was actually an example of this in your most recent video. At the 17:56 mark, you stated a positive in opinion form ("I like..."), followed by an explanation of that opinion, then immediately followed it up with a con that was just as well-explained, which made for a really well-rounded and constructive criticism for the map's design. By stating both a positive and a negative, you offered a balanced critique and didn't come across as biased at all! Though there's not always going to be a positive to counterbalance a negative in all situations, what really made the difference was stating "I like..." instead of "This is..." So keep it up! Your videos are always extremely well-edited, and your commentary is interesting. :)

My parents played a lot of Beatles around the house, and I really loved them. They also had an album called There Goes Rhymin' Simon (Simon from Simon & Garfunkel), and I used to sing along to it while I was swinging on the swing set outside. So 60s/70s pop music had a really big presence in my childhood. Also some prog and harder rock like Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin, though it wasn't played around the house as much. My mom got really into a couple country artists at one point like Faith Hill, Sheryl Crowe, and Shania Twain, and I thought Shania's music was pretty fun. Both my parents were really into John Cougar in the later 90s, and to this day I still think of Ocarina of Time whenever I hear some of his music, since they always had music on while I was playing video games in the living room. And, speaking of Ocarina of Time, it also made me think differently about video game music, and I loved listening to the music in that game and figuring out the songs by ear on piano. When I got into my early/mid teens I started to pick more music for myself. The first bands I got really into were Nirvana, Led Zeppelin, The Fall of Troy, and Explosions in the Sky. EitS introduced me to the post-rock scene, and I was really into that kind of music for a while, and just instrumental rock in general. That got me back into playing piano heavily, and I started writing my own stuff (which wasn't very good), so it kind of reignited my passion for music. After that I started heavily consuming music from filesharing sites, and kept doing so until they really cracked down on places like Mediafire a few years ago. From about 16-20 I exposed myself to tons of genres, ranging from rockabilly to black metal, and started to really get a feel for what I do and don't like in music. Now I pretty much only listen to dream pop, shoegaze, and video game music. I love bands like The Cranberries, Cocteau Twins, Asobi Seksu, My Bloody Valentine, etc. So that's pretty much the niche I've carved out for myself over the years. Anything with a lot of atmosphere, I love, so there's a few black and doom metal bands I like too. I also like the raw energy and emotion from when I listened to a lot of hard rock and post-hardcore, and I like bands like Touche Amore, La Dispute, and some midwest emo if I'm in the right mood for it. I don't listen to post-rock nearly as much, but when I do it's mostly Japanese bands that do more technical/experimental things like Mouse on the Keys and World's End Girlfriend, instead of Explosions in the Sky-style crescendo-driven stuff. So basically, never really took it seriously until around 15 or so and now I listen to a little bit of everything, with the most love for dream pop and shoegaze and atmospheric stuff in general! And also video game soundtracks, lots of video game soundtracks. Love Red House Painters! Basically every artist that was on 4AD up until the 2000s was pure gold. If you're into "slowcore", definitely check out Carissa's Wierd, although they're more "sadcore" (a lot of their lyrics are really depressing), though those two genres seem to overlap a lot.

Seconding this. The different sections don't seem to be entirely cohesive, but as sketches they're pretty solid. I'd spice up the beginning and ending sections a bit so your left hand isn't just playing solid chords, but your improvisation with the melody is pretty good. That bass line that started a little after the two minute mark was pretty cool, I'd suggest coming up with another one for one of the other parts to spice it up a little bit, and maybe some transitions to have the different sections flow together better. Great framework, though!

Seriously. In that timeline, instead of the final blow being a stab to Ganon's head, he must have tried to charge a spin attack instead, and in the time it takes to charge it Ganon recovered and just destroyed him.

Well, in the games it's mainly a move used when you're surrounded by lots of enemies. Even in that situation, though, I don't think it would be wise, because as you're spinning you always have at least one enemy out of your sight, and you can't really see what you're trying to hit anyway. It would work wonders for cutting grass though.

Yeah, I think they'll find a way too. Maybe not with the Wii U, but they will find a way to be successful and bounce back from this situation. I'm interested to see what this QOL stuff will be, because if it's a platform specifically for the Wii Sports/Wii Fit crowd that appeals exclusively to casual gamers, and they work on another games console at the same time, they could segment their business and put out much more compelling platforms for both gamers and casuals alike. That's my best-case scenario right now, personally.

I don't really think anyone's playing the victim, just pointing out the fact that they're being ganged up on. There are more respectful ways to point out if you think someone is being naive. Just explaining your point of view or where theirs might be a bit out of touch is enough, one doesn't need to go into condescending remarks. Your point can be made either way. Not every conversation on the internet has to be about proving the person wrong and making them feel bad for being wrong, and not everyone gets into discussion to grow as a person or have all the holes in their logic or thinking pointed out to them in a way that can seem insulting. Anyway, as for Hyrule Warriors, I'm really glad Nintendo is letting someone do something different with the Zelda IP. I don't think it will turn things around for the Wii U alone, but at the very least it's another compelling title under Nintendo's belt, and they need all of those they can get. Plus, it will be a good game to hold people over until Zelda U hits.

It's all good! I know where you're coming from with your perspective, I used to be a die-hard Nintendo fan and would only play on Nintendo platforms. The first time I played a PS2 I felt like I was betraying Nintendo. So I know what it's like to be loyal to a company and want to see them succeed!

Don't let it get to you. If there's one thing I've noticed after being here for a couple weeks, it's that when some people here disagree, they tend to not-so-respectfully disagree. I'm sorry if I offended you with my posts, I was trying to be as respectful as possible.

Tangerine, I feel that you are misunderstanding and misrepresenting my points. Changing something to be the same as another popular franchise with a larger fanbase isn't the same thing as taking a risk by providing something new and different. It's merely imitating the most popular games on the market and providing nothing new whatsoever to consumers, while simultaneously removing the unique elements of the franchises that change. It's the opposite of taking a risk, it's moving to a formula that has proven to be successful for other franchises. Resident Evil's unique trait was horror. That has been dumbed down with the recent installments. Same with Dead Space. Dragon Age's unique trait was how similar it was to a traditional tabletop roleplaying experience. That has been dumbed down in future installments. This isn't the same as taking a risk to offer something new, it is taking away what was once offered to more closely resemble another popular game and offer more of what that audience expects to draw them in. I admitted to not playing the Dead Rising series. I played FFXIII, and even addressed how it opens up by commenting on the Gran Pulse section, which you seem to have missed. The fact is, Square's reasons for FFXIII's design choices have changed over and over again depending on when they are asked, and while the graphics did undoubtedly play a factor, Call of Duty's success did as well, as they themselves mentioned in that FFXIII is similar in their minds, and in the end all I'm trying to prove is that it has had some influence and continues to do so. Whether or not it is the primary reason is irrelevant, because it is a reason nonetheless, and just because there may be multiple reasons does not discredit CoD's influence as a reason as well. The reason I am not praising FFXIII isn't because the changes "didn't take", it's because the changes removed content and mechanics people, including myself, have come to expect since they were present in nearly every other game in the entire series and were omitted from XIII. I also played the original Dragon Age, the first two Dead Space games, and Resident Evil 5, but I did not play the most recent installments because of these changes, which have been widely reported both by gaming media outlets and by regular consumers alike. I have no reason not to believe this information when it is being confirmed by everyone who comments about the game. Again, these are not changes for the sake of innovation or offering something new, these are changes to offer fans of more popular franchises experiences they may feel more familiar with and can further ease into. And while EA did not specifically mention Call of Duty, the game is still conforming to trends of more popular action-driven shooters. It's very easy to discredit sources of information by saying they are fishing for hits, and many sites do, but the fact remains that DA2 removed many of the roleplaying elements and focused on action, and Bioware stated they wanted the Call of Duty audience. The two things aren't exclusive, they are related. You are choosing not to believe factual information by trying to paint the source of said information as untrustworthy, which is a pretty low cop-out, especially when that isn't the only source reporting said information. As for FFXII, I didn't like it, but I respect it because those changes were a real risk and not done as an attempt to capture another audience. The new battle system and less focus on character development didn't appeal to me, but it was well-executed and I can see why others like it. XIII did take risks by offering a new battle system, which I can again respect, but the removal of so much other content to make it a more FPS-like experience is something I cannot respect, because it seems to have been born from looking at the popularity of the FPS genre and not from trying to offer something new. I never said gaming is dying, but many franchises certainly are losing their integrity, and dismissing trends in game design because of sources or the idea that suddenly everyone can complain much more than before isn't an accurate assessment of the situation. Outside of a few select communities, people aren't complaining for the sake of complaining. They are complaining because there are things to complain about.

As dire as the system's situation is, personally it is the most appealing console to me right now. It just needs a few more games and I'll most likely purchase one. As others have mentioned, a PC can do most things the PS4/XBO can do, and there are rumors FFXV and KHIII may show up on PC due to a recent comment from Square-Enix about PC support, which would get rid of pretty much the only reason I would buy a PS4. Vita and Wii U are the most appealing platforms to me right now that I don't own, which I find kind of amusing since they're the two current systems that are doing the worst right now. As much as I talk about how I don't see Nintendo's situation improving, I can say that I do have some interest in the system. I'm just waiting for there to be a sizable enough library to push me over the edge, and I'm sure there are many others doing the same.

I haven't played any of them so I can't really confirm for myself, I'm just going off of what I read from various gaming sites. Regardless, Call of Duty did have some influence if it was mentioned by Capcom, whether that was for better or worse.

There are certain FPSs I like, and ones that I don't. The fact that they saturated the market this generation has little to do with whether they are good or bad by my personal taste, it has a lot more to do with whether a single genre making up so much of the market is good for the industry, and in my opinion, it's not. The success of Call of Duty alone has not only affected the FPS market either. Numerous developers, from Square-Enix to Capcom, have mentioned the "Call of Duty audience", and how they want to appeal to it. Around FFXIII's release, this was being cited as a reason for why it was so linear. FFXIII saw the removal of towns and much meaningful exploration (that is, not branching paths of a hallway, and, despite being quite large, Gran Pulse was nothing more than empty fields with encounters), and many other elements that had been standard in the series. No one knows the exact reason for that, but we do know that Square was interested in CoD's success and how they could appeal to that audience. Here are just a few examples of developers changing their games to appeal to the CoD audience: Final Fantasy XIII The result of this was a much more linear game with the removal of many standard FF elements. Dead Space 3 The result of this was a much more action-focused game with the removal of many of the horror elements. Resident Evil 6 Same as above. Dragon Age II Much more focus on action, less focus on traditional roleplaying than the first game. Widely regarded to be a much worse game than its predecessor. Dead Rising 3 Haven't paid enough attention to this series to know how it was affected, but from reviews and impressions of the game many have cited a shift in tone and a loss of some of the uniqueness of the first two games. These are just the first examples that popped up from a simple search. There are many, many more. This is what I mean by "dumbed down". These games were changed and elements were removed to appeal to a broader audience, and it's the success of Call of Duty and similar FPSs that lead to this, as it is what developers have cited time and time again. The notion that it isn't affecting design and games aren't being simplified is completely false. In the coming generation I do see this changing though. Ghosts apparently didn't sell as much as expected and Activision has a tendency to milk franchises dry (see Tony Hawk and Guitar Hero), and CoD's time may about be up. The market is yearning for something different, and while indies are doing a good job of satisfying that, I think we're probably going to see AAA devs take more risks in the near future and stop chasing this audience that isn't theirs and never was. While there were many generic RPGs on the PS2, I would compare this more to the saturation of the market with platformers during the 16-bit and 32-bit eras, which lead to a lot of awful games and companies trying to capture the Mario and Sonic audiences by pushing out animal mascots. Also, the RPGs on the PS2, while large in number, didn't seem to have much of an effect on games outside their own genre, unlike what has been happening with Call of Duty and storied franchises like Resident Evil. That's what I mean by "dumbing down". Taking features and gameplay elements out of games that have historically always had them, or dramatic shifts in tone and design priorities from previous entries in storied franchises, in efforts to appeal to a wider audience. It has nothing to do with what I like or dislike in games or my personal taste, it has to do with the removal of features and changes in design that are taking place. As for what I want out of games, it isn't complexity. It's integrity. It's games that are true to themselves and don't make such great lengths to draw in these other audiences that it sours the experience and negatively impacts the design.

This. You should apply for a job at IGN.

Well, with both the 3DS and the Wii U, Nintendo's main selling point that they've been pushing hasn't really captured people. By that I mean, people aren't buying the 3DS for the 3D, they're buying it for all the great games it has. Likewise, people aren't buying the Wii U for the gamepad (sorry for using "tablet", that was kind of ignorant of me), but it doesn't have the library to draw people in yet like the 3DS does. You could be right about Wii U pulling a 3DS once it gets more games, and I'd like it if that happened, I guess the only point I'm trying to make is that Nintendo can't rely on the majority of the Wii audience to move over to the new platform. On the gamer side of things, it doesn't help that most third party titles are not going to appear on the system either. It just seems like they're trying to appeal to two very different audiences at once. It's just that one of those audiences isn't loyal and is getting their fix elsewhere (mainly on phones), and there isn't enough developer support or games available to capture the other audience (gamers) either at the moment. I just don't see it ever reaching Wii sales numbers because the audience that made the Wii such a success has dissipated.

It's true that a lot of Wii U games use the Wii Remote, but what I was trying to say is that it isn't as new or interesting as it was when the Wii came out, and that's why we aren't seeing the same interest. People already experienced the novelty of the Wii Remote back then, and I'm guessing they just don't see reason to spend $300 on a more powerful Wii when they already have one. The tablet isn't enough of a draw to justify that investment for most of the Wii audience either, it seems. In other words, the introduction of the Wii Remote was like lightning, and lightning doesn't strike twice. I'd like to think that will happen too, but I'm not entirely confident once people figure out what it is they're going to want it either. It's a really hard sell when the casual market is so owned by facebook and smartphone games now. The only audience it really has is hardcore Nintendo fans, and as someone who would consider themselves a Nintendo fan, there isn't even enough for me to go buy one now (though I'll probably pick one up after Smash is out). I think they just made the error of thinking the Wii audience had staying power, and that really cost them.

Nintendo Land failed to capture the same attention Wii Sports did, likely because the tablet isn't as universally appealing as the Wii Remote. Everyone wanted to try playing tennis by actually swinging the remote like a tennis racket. It was something so simple and new, but so universally appealing that it became a phenomenon. I know tons of people who bought a Wii and only owned Wii Sports and Wii Fit. When it comes to Wii U Sports and Wii Fit U, they aren't as new or exciting as they were back then, and the people who played them are either unaware of the Wii U or are confused and think it's a tablet controller for their Wii, which they don't want to spend the money on just to play another casual game when they're perfectly happy with the ones they already have. The Wii's success was largely on the backs of people who aren't the type to go out and buy the latest system or play a ton of games, and that market isn't loyal enough to migrate to the next system because they simply don't care enough to be following the industry anyway. They're content with f2p or $2 games on their phones now.

The Wii was a phenomenon right off the bat. Having Wii Sports as a pack-in and it being all over the news and various talk shows really secured its success early on, especially since many places toted it as a healthy way to exercise for seniors and the like. Wii U has completely failed to garner the same attention, and I don't think it will live up to the Wii's sales at all. It will probably sell GameCube-like numbers in its lifetime, maybe less. The 3DS is an interesting success story though, and I hope the Wii U can turn around like it did. I'm not sure what it will take, but I hope that it's possible.

Their mistake was going after an audience that wasn't loyal in the first place and has since moved on to get their casual games elsewhere (mostly the smartphone market). The name is also very confusing to people who aren't very into gaming, which are the people that made the Wii such a huge success. I'd love to see Nintendo go all-out and make another powerhouse like the NES, SNES, N64, or GameCube (which was hurt mostly by a "kiddie" image and the lack of media features in a time where that was a major selling point, despite being a fantastic system), but at this point I'm unsure whether enough developers would even get on board and support it, even if the hardware power is there, because they perceive Nintendo's audience as being uninterested in their games. Nintendo's in a bit of a predicament at the moment. I have a feeling we'll see the Wii U retired much sooner than the PS4/XBO, and hopefully its successor will go completely after one audience or the other and Nintendo can stop trying to balance casuals and their core fans.

Without risk taking, there is very little progression, and the industry begins to stagnate. This relates to the AAA market because budgets are so huge for a game with high production values that it has to be a calculated hit to even make good use of the hardware. This is holding games back, because games that have new, innovative ideas are huge risks and often aren't allowed to reach their full potential because they don't have the budget or guaranteed audience of a generic FPS, the genre which we saw completely saturate the market this generation. If a risk-taking game is greenlit and given a sizable budget, compromises often have to be made in regards to its design in order to make it appeal to the lowest common denominator and "broaden the audience", a term which almost always means "dumb down the mechanics". I referred to it as the 360/PS3 generation because Nintendo largely fell outside of the trends that were happening everywhere else in the industry in terms of business practices.

.