Dan Takahashi of Venture Beat incompetently plays Cuphead for almost half an hour

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

DarthCoercis:
Snip

Or, you know, it means they wanted to address specific parts of your post and wanted to explicitly specify which parts they were responding to at a given point. It's actually pretty standard practice in long-form discussion forums because it separates the content into a more easily-followable format during lengthy posts that might have multiple paragraphs and be approaching multiple topics.

When you just present a block essay in response to another post, it can be easy for a third-party reader to lose the thread somewhere along the way if they're actually trying to read along. It can also be an indication that the respondent has actually read the post in question, and can make it easier for the direction of the subsequent discussion to stay on a specific track. That's not always true, of course; I've certainly had run-ins where people intentionally cut out the context surrounding lines so that they can reframe what I've said, or they snip things that provide critical explanation or clarification for what they've left in, giving the impression that they either didn't read what they took out, didn't take it in, or didn't find it to be important, for whatever reasons.

Anyway, the point is that your personal preferences for how you read an internet forum aren't universal, and pettily sniping at somebody for how they've formatted their post doesn't make you look better than them.

Johnny Novgorod:

I don't know. I didn't bring that up. I don't care nor understand anything about that nonsense.

Well, Gyrobot's putting that out there, and he's not giving much explanation about it, so I was hoping SOMEBODY had some insight.

McMarbles:
Actual white supremacy: It's just free speech, brah!

Kind of shit at a game: NAIL HIM TO THE CROSS.

Not only that, but everyone who doesn't politically agree with me is a scrub game player!

I swear, it's Darksydephil level logic at play here.

Dreiko:
So, having read this a response post this guy made about this situation, I am reminded of an issue I've been pondering for a while. So, in part of his response he said that most games nowadays don't have tutorials and by making a game which requires a tutorial to be understood before play you're de-facto not making a game with as wide an appeal as you could.

I never understood that line of reasoning. At which point do we want for games to be appealing for being games and when is it too far where a game has become a tv show or a movie in the goal of this maximum appeal.

I think that it is fine for games not appealing to non-gamers, because games are games, and we are NOT going to change the games, what will change is the PEOPLE who will want to get into them and like them. Mutating games into a pseudo-game-state just so that the appeal will be wider is not good for games, only good for the profits of corporations, because the thing that will be raking all those profits in won't be a game any more.

Games have difficulty, some are harder than others, and most of them DO entail a tutorial, just in some cases it's in the form of the first stage and supplemented with a lot of hand-holding throughout. I am not sure if he was actually unaware of that fact or is generally oblivious.

Which are all legit points.

Now how did we get from that to "Anti_GG'ers are scrub game players" as the OP insists?

CaitSeith:

Dreiko:
I know moderately smart 4 year olds who could figure this out sooner.

Pics or didn't happen.

I can do you one better, full video!

Smithnikov:

Dreiko:
So, having read this a response post this guy made about this situation, I am reminded of an issue I've been pondering for a while. So, in part of his response he said that most games nowadays don't have tutorials and by making a game which requires a tutorial to be understood before play you're de-facto not making a game with as wide an appeal as you could.

I never understood that line of reasoning. At which point do we want for games to be appealing for being games and when is it too far where a game has become a tv show or a movie in the goal of this maximum appeal.

I think that it is fine for games not appealing to non-gamers, because games are games, and we are NOT going to change the games, what will change is the PEOPLE who will want to get into them and like them. Mutating games into a pseudo-game-state just so that the appeal will be wider is not good for games, only good for the profits of corporations, because the thing that will be raking all those profits in won't be a game any more.

Games have difficulty, some are harder than others, and most of them DO entail a tutorial, just in some cases it's in the form of the first stage and supplemented with a lot of hand-holding throughout. I am not sure if he was actually unaware of that fact or is generally oblivious.

Which are all legit points.

Now how did we get from that to "Anti_GG'ers are scrub game players" as the OP insists?

It's prolly due to the fact that on average you have a lot of people who either joined gaming later or who don't play games as seriously as they do their other activities in that side. Of course, this is all labeling and generalizations so I personally avoid it, but I can't shake the feeling that a good enough chunk of the most prominent critics who complain about "mass appeal" do so without actually comprehending how the games work. And hey, that makes sense, since if you're one of the most prominent critics, you put your energy towards making engaging content and not as much of it goes into your gaming skills, but there definitely is a sense that people are talking about things they do not understand.

Now, you could definitely say the same about the "anti-sjw" people, since I'm sure a lot of them would prolly suck just as much (and I'm not interested in figuring out which group sucks more in the confines of this point) but the big, world-defining difference here is that this group isn't advocating for games to be changed in any way whatsoever, so whatever their experience is, is kinda irrelevant. All they're advocating for is the continuation of the status quo. So, at the VERY worst, their input is neutral, which is a hell of a lot better than the results that would come to pass if some of the people on the other side got their way.

This is where I stop with this. I honestly see games better off by continuing to be games and if we have to support idiot blowhards who also suck at games to achieve that, it genuinely is a small price to pay.

Ya'll need to watch more ESPN.

Sportscasters regularly flub fundamental actions relating to the games they talk about, then everybody laughs because it's funny and goes about their day.

If it's bad enough, it might make one of the copious numbers of top ten fails lists sports have constantly. Nobody calls for their damned job over it. Especially when they own up to it and release their own footage as a "look how bad I am" self-depreciating video.

Seriously, the only reason we know about this is because he put his own video up for people to laugh at. Would you rather he didn't, and previewed Cuphead without that context?

Dreiko:

This is where I stop with this. I honestly see games better off by continuing to be games and if we have to support idiot blowhards who also suck at games to achieve that, it genuinely is a small price to pay.

There's where we differ. I can juggle both wanting games to be games and telling the anti-SJW's to knock it off already with the labels. Being labelled by them myself makes it easier, granted.

Dreiko:

Now, you could definitely say the same about the "anti-sjw" people, since I'm sure a lot of them would prolly suck just as much (and I'm not interested in figuring out which group sucks more in the confines of this point) but the big, world-defining difference here is that this group isn't advocating for games to be changed in any way whatsoever, so whatever their experience is, is kinda irrelevant.

Plenty do. I've seen people complaining that the gay relationships in Mass Effect and other titles are "pandering", and should be removed; I've seen complaints that walking simulators aren't real games, that only "SJWs" like them, and that developers should have included other mechanics instead.

Both camps include plenty of people who criticise game design and want it changed to reflect personal preference.

...He wasn't even reviewing the game, he was just previewing it.

I'd ask why this is even a big deal, but... *flashes back to the Mass Effect 3 ending*... gamers.

Silvanus:

Dreiko:

Now, you could definitely say the same about the "anti-sjw" people, since I'm sure a lot of them would prolly suck just as much (and I'm not interested in figuring out which group sucks more in the confines of this point) but the big, world-defining difference here is that this group isn't advocating for games to be changed in any way whatsoever, so whatever their experience is, is kinda irrelevant.

Plenty do. I've seen people complaining that the gay relationships in Mass Effect and other titles are "pandering", and should be removed; I've seen complaints that walking simulators aren't real games, that only "SJWs" like them, and that developers should have included other mechanics instead.

Both camps include plenty of people who criticise game design and want it changed to reflect personal preference.

I think you're defining stuff very strangely. What, if not games being changed, is it when these elements are added to games out of nowhere? Being against those elements isn't wanting to change games but rather resisting other people changing them. Only if these elements were in games forever more, would being against them be a desire to change gaming. There's of course such a thing as organic change but it is a gradual process, you don't start and go from Syphon Filter 1 to MGS5 within a single game. It's supposed to be gradual, as that is an indication it is a perfection of the genre, being polished to a higher degree.

Walking simulators are like a more gameplay-heavy visual novel and you don't hear quite as many people decrying visual novels as "not real games" in the same vein as people do walking sims. Do you know why that is? Do you know why games like Phoenix Write or 999 or Danganronpa all have at least some respect in the community but specifically walking simulators don't? I think if you tried figuring that out you'd see the reason. I'm someone who both plays competitive fighting games on a tournament level (which is one of the harder genres to get really good at) and simultaneously someone who loves visual novels and story-based RPGs, yet I find no issue with being against most of those walking sims, and it is not because I can't appreciate story or minimal gameplay in my games. I think it's a simplistic way of thinking if that's all you end up with to explain why people are against walking sims.

Basically, this pandering is the face of games being changed, so being against it is being of the opinion that games are better off as they are. You can include these themes organically, such as how it was in Persona 2 Innocent Sin (where you have a gay romance option) but when you make it into a big publicity stunt it comes off as fake and done to earn brownie points as opposed to making the game actually better. (though I guess they don't know how to make good games any more based on their newest mass effect lol)

HOW DARE HE NOT BE A MASTER OF ALL GAMES!!11!!!11!

Like...seriously?
Anyone who thinks a gaming journalist has to be perfect at 'all the games' must think anyone who reports on war fronts should be a former solider/great at the killing and anyone who reports on sports must be a former sports player/great at the ball using.

Oi vey this thread and this 'controversy' is so fucking stupid.

Then again...this is the theme song for those GG folks, so what do you expect?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDlofPAOZy0

Dreiko:
-snip-

The problem I see is that you're comfortable with the status quo, don't want it to change, and think your taste speaks for way more people than in reality. You're drawing arbitrary standards that you won't even properly define (e.g. "organic"). It's gatekeeping. Nothing more, nothing less, and it would be less grating if you just owned it.

major_chaos:

DarthCoercis:
snip

*rolleyes* If your post can't handle me stripping out the fluff and addressing it point by point for the sake of clarity then you aren't worth responding to. You do you.

Yeah, except that you decided to try and use selective parts to make snarky comments, not address any point. For example, celebrity worship? Since when are youtube people "celebrities"?

Conversely, if you can't come up with a cohesive discussion to address any of the points I've queried or raised without chopping up what I've said, then you've got no response worth making. Snark and sarcasm only get you so far, and when you encounter an arsehole like me, that isn't far. You spouted, in my eyes, a ton of nonsense. Nothing you've said since then has given me any reason to believe otherwise.

BeetleManiac:

Dreiko:
-snip-

The problem I see is that you're comfortable with the status quo, don't want it to change, and think your taste speaks for way more people than in reality. You're drawing arbitrary standards that you won't even properly define (e.g. "organic"). It's gatekeeping. Nothing more, nothing less, and it would be less grating if you just owned it.

Hmmm, comfortable? No, I just don't particularly care. The status quo can change as much as it wants, as long as I get to sit back with a beer and laugh at/amuse myself with whatever I choose to. As for arbitrary standards, well, so what? Doesn't everyone have arbitrary standards? On that, if someone provides me with factual information that conflicts with my own ideas and opinions then I'll update my views to incorporate the new facts. I'm not beholden to any position beyond "does this amuse me?".

To both of you, I've never pretended that I was anything other than an opinionated arsehole who enjoys stirring shit and doesn't care about anything beyond his own amusement. Take me at face value, at best. As a shit stirrer at worst.

I'd just like to point out that we have 5 pages of this nonsense and not a freakin' peep about the world's biggest YouTuber/gaming personality screaming "f---ing n---er!" during a live stream, which I guess is the world we live in now. And people wonder why gamers and gaming culture get a bad rap...

Tanis:
HOW DARE HE NOT BE A MASTER OF ALL GAMES!!11!!!11!

Like...seriously?
Anyone who thinks a gaming journalist has to be perfect at 'all the games' must think anyone who reports on war fronts should be a former solider/great at the killing and anyone who reports on sports must be a former sports player/great at the ball using.

Oi vey this thread and this 'controversy' is so fucking stupid.

Then again...this is the theme song for those GG folks, so what do you expect?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDlofPAOZy0

I'm pretty shit at platformers too. Guess the 35+ years I've been playing video games are a figment of my imagination!

Exley97:
I'd just like to point out that we have 5 pages of this nonsense and not a freakin' peep about the world's biggest YouTuber/gaming personality screaming "f---ing n---er!" during a live stream, which I guess is the world we live in now. And people wonder why gamers and gaming culture get a bad rap...

This isn't twitter, where every random thought and comment is just thrown out into the aether. It's a forum. Forums have topics. Post are sorted into these topics by the posters who, ideally, stay on that topic, or at least only stray from it when the discussion naturally requires as much.

This thread is about a dude who had problems in a game and a user that holds the idea that there's a direct correlation between that and his 'political' stance, along with general commentary on reviewers and skill levels. It has absolutely nothing to do with a youtuber who makes money off of getting people to pay attention to him by any means possible. If you want to talk about that, find or make a topic about it. Don't try to derail this one.

EDIT: Or make a thread about how no one made a thread about the whole Pew thing. But I can already tell you what the response will by - Why didn't YOU make the thread if you care so much about it?

DarthCoercis:
To both of you, I've never pretended that I was anything other than an opinionated arsehole who enjoys stirring shit and doesn't care about anything beyond his own amusement. Take me at face value, at best. As a shit stirrer at worst.

Pretty sure I wasn't talking to you. But now that you have my attention, what are you going to do with it? Impress me.

DarthCoercis:

major_chaos:
[quote="DarthCoercis" post="9.1018328.24118974"]snip

To both of you, I've never pretended that I was anything other than an opinionated arsehole who enjoys stirring shit and doesn't care about anything beyond his own amusement. Take me at face value, at best. As a shit stirrer at worst.

Someone who stirs shit for their own amusement? I think there's another word for that. Starts with T.

Dreiko:

I think you're defining stuff very strangely. What, if not games being changed, is it when these elements are added to games out of nowhere? Being against those elements isn't wanting to change games but rather resisting other people changing them. Only if these elements were in games forever more, would being against them be a desire to change gaming. There's of course such a thing as organic change but it is a gradual process, you don't start and go from Syphon Filter 1 to MGS5 within a single game. It's supposed to be gradual, as that is an indication it is a perfection of the genre, being polished to a higher degree.

"Added to games out of nowhere"? I'm talking about things added by the developers, during the game development process. If you're even including that as some kind of improper "change" that must be resisted, then I'm not the one defining things strangely here.

Art forms evolve. You may as well complain about Dickens changing our beloved novels by choosing to include political themes.

Dreiko:

Walking simulators are like a more gameplay-heavy visual novel and you don't hear quite as many people decrying visual novels as "not real games" in the same vein as people do walking sims. Do you know why that is? Do you know why games like Phoenix Write or 999 or Danganronpa all have at least some respect in the community but specifically walking simulators don't? I think if you tried figuring that out you'd see the reason. I'm someone who both plays competitive fighting games on a tournament level (which is one of the harder genres to get really good at) and simultaneously someone who loves visual novels and story-based RPGs, yet I find no issue with being against most of those walking sims, and it is not because I can't appreciate story or minimal gameplay in my games. I think it's a simplistic way of thinking if that's all you end up with to explain why people are against walking sims.

I'm not making assumptions about why people are against walking simulators; I'm referring to complaints I've heard, which bemoan that such games have been made to "pander to SJWs". I don't care about other complaints people have.

The fact is that people on both sides of the aisle moan about the gameplay or narrative choices that developers have made, and criticise them accordingly. It's so ubiquitous, it's borderline undeniable. To imagine this is one-sided is absurd.

People still care about GG? Stop living in the past.

Smithnikov:
I hate Gamergate, and I finished S.T.A.L.K.E.R on Misery mod.

So where do we go with that?

ARGH! Do not remind me about S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Misery! Its latest release is so close yet so far... what were we talking about again? Oh yeah, gamergate; meh. I tried to remain open minded but found every time people were at my throat for not blindly siding with them while others placed the blame of the negative experience squarely at my feet soooo, meh.

Silvanus:

"Added to games out of nowhere"? I'm talking about things added by the developers, during the game development process. If you're even including that as some kind of improper "change" that must be resisted, then I'm not the one defining things strangely here.

Art forms evolve. You may as well complain about Dickens changing our beloved novels by choosing to include political themes.

I explained that, it's supposed to be a gradual process. You don't go from Syphon Filter 1 to mgs5 within two game releases.

Making a typical Wrpg with generic themes suddenly be the paragon of rainbow rights feels artificial, whereas if you have something like the yaoi genre which has had a long tradition it feels organic for such themes to exist in a game that flows out of that tradition.

I'm not making assumptions about why people are against walking simulators; I'm referring to complaints I've heard, which bemoan that such games have been made to "pander to SJWs". I don't care about other complaints people have.

The fact is that people on both sides of the aisle moan about the gameplay or narrative choices that developers have made, and criticise them accordingly. It's so ubiquitous, it's borderline undeniable. To imagine this is one-sided is absurd.

Well, that complaint means something, and you have to look at other games which have the same amount of gameplay and story, which do NOT receive that complaint, and compare/analyze why it is that one non-gamey-game gets the complaint but another doesn't.

What I'm saying is that you're missing the reason that the complaining occurs. If I were to specify it for you, it'd be that most walking sims feel like games made by an alien life-form which only ever read about games in books but never actually played one but decided they could make a game better than anybody else out there. They have a pretentious air about them, using the blanket of "art" to cover shortcomings and excuse bad design (and I do think games are art, but that's no defense). Coupled with that comes an arrogant attitude of "everyone is a gamer even if they've only played candy crush once for a minute" which makes people who have valid complaints come off as some form of elitist trying to keep people out of gaming, and yeah, you won't incur much favor. You're not making a rational criticism based on facts, you're denying their "gamer identity" because of being some form of gate-keeper. Not a very positivity-inducing way of dealing with people.

On the other hand, when someone plays and dislikes Fate/stay night, they do so while in some form respecting it as a game and just see it as being not for them. The creator of the game won't berate them for being some form of lower intelligence unable to appreciate the art that is the game, won't call em a bigot against anime/Japanese people for their dislike, nor will 99.99999% of the fans of that game do any of those things either. This results in people going their merry way and not feeling the negativity one needs to feel to complain about the game.

Dreiko:

I explained that, it's supposed to be a gradual process. You don't go from Syphon Filter 1 to mgs5 within two game releases.

Making a typical Wrpg with generic themes suddenly be the paragon of rainbow rights feels artificial, whereas if you have something like the yaoi genre which has had a long tradition it feels organic for such themes to exist in a game that flows out of that tradition.

It's already been gradual; we've had decades upon decades of little-to-no representation, and now we've just got a little more, and that's still too much?! Nonsense. If someone thinks a few more gay characters in games is moving too fast, they need to get over their own discomfort. There's no good reason their irrational discomfort should impact creative design.

You're complaining about game developers including things in their own damn games. You're the one requesting that the creators move away from what they want to make, in order to cater to your personal preference.

Dreiko:

Well, that complaint means something, and you have to look at other games which have the same amount of gameplay and story, which do NOT receive that complaint, and compare/analyze why it is that one non-gamey-game gets the complaint but another doesn't.

What I'm saying is that you're missing the reason that the complaining occurs. If I were to specify it for you, it'd be that most walking sims feel like games made by an alien life-form which only ever read about games in books but never actually played one but decided they could make a game better than anybody else out there. They have a pretentious air about them, using the blanket of "art" to cover shortcomings and excuse bad design (and I do think games are art, but that's no defense). Coupled with that comes an arrogant attitude of "everyone is a gamer even if they've only played candy crush once for a minute" which makes people who have valid complaints come off as some form of elitist trying to keep people out of gaming, and yeah, you won't incur much favor. You're not making a rational criticism based on facts, you're denying their "gamer identity" because of being some form of gate-keeper. Not a very positivity-inducing way of dealing with people.

On the other hand, when someone plays and dislikes Fate/stay night, they do so while in some form respecting it as a game and just see it as being not for them. The creator of the game won't berate them for being some form of lower intelligence unable to appreciate the art that is the game, won't call em a bigot against anime/Japanese people for their dislike, nor will 99.99999% of the fans of that game do any of those things either. This results in people going their merry way and not feeling the negativity one needs to feel to complain about the game.

If the complaint is that it's "pandering to SJWs"-- one I've heard, word-for-word, more times than I care to count-- then it's not seriously worth analysing. Don't lost sight of the fact that it's a political slur. I have no artistic reason to sit here and take that seriously as a critique, when it's intended as a personal insult.

DrownedAmmet:
Thought this quote from the man himself was particularly relevant

Dean: I?ve watched the comments on this thread just to see how mean they would be. I think it?s useful to show my gameplay experience. I did not intentionally play poorly to ?troll? anyone. But it serves as an interesting social experiment. I walk into a game cold, and this is the play that results. The video shows it?s a notch more difficult than your typical Mario game.

In fact, if you are expecting Mario, as the story says, then you are thrown off. And it shows that the developers are going to leave a lot of people who are worse than me behind. Maybe they?re fine with that. Maybe they want to target gamers with a love for difficult games. That?s fine. But I think they should signal that. How many games actually come with a tutorial these days? They?re not popular. But if it?s necessary, that is a signal this is going to require some skill.

As for other comments on this thread, I wonder why they are hostile to someone who is viewing the game as a beginner? Are we that intolerant of people who are not ?gamers?? Should I have played the scene over and over again until I was good at it, and then turned the recording on, like so many of those perfect video walkthroughs you see?

I believe that games can be made accessible and inviting to people who are not hardcore fans, and these people can be accommodated inside the same game that is appealing to hardcore fans, through difficulty levels. So when people tell me that I shouldn?t be playing this game because, on my first play, I was pretty lousy ? that?s an attitude that argues that games should be shut off in their own little corner, only played publicly by the masters and the experts. I disagree with that view entirely, and I believe it leads to elitist attitudes that allow gamers to look down on other people, and that only leads to a more fragmented world of haters.?

I don't see the big deal. I think we've all been in his place, where for whatever reason you just don't get what the game wants you to do.
He comes across as a dude who gave his honest opinion of the game, and you can't really ask for more than that

The guy has been a paid mouthpiece for Microsoft for years, so he automatically can't be trusted to give an honest opinion on anything. If he said water is wet, I'd be asking for independently vetted sources.

Dreiko:

CaitSeith:

Dreiko:
I know moderately smart 4 year olds who could figure this out sooner.

Pics or didn't happen.

I can do you one better, full video!

It doesn't count if she isn't playing it.

PS: LOL, the video is hilarious.


covers most of what I think about this situation.
From personal perspective:
a) I suck at game pads (prefer mouse and keyboard) so I'd expect to fare no better than Dan on first try, although I would at least try and follow instructions on the screen
b) There's no problem with Dan being bad, problem is with him trying to blame the game not his ineptitude and then trying to cover it up by rehashing title and article.
c) Dan has a track record of being incompetent and misrepresenting games and reporting falsly on their mechanics and gameplay. That's terrible in case of game's journalist CV. Had I been him I at least would try to improve, had gaming and testing be part of my job.
d) His bosses were well aware of his lacking skills, they knew his opinion on game requiring coordination skills is invalid because he fails to properly test them yet they sent him to preview this.
e) His bosses instead of admitting they messed up and Dan just isn't an expert in this field and should stick to other things he is good at, started by trying ninja editting material and title to frame whole thing as a joke, followed by blaming game, followed by blaming & shaming people who pointed out this is unpforessional, followed by accusing anyone pointing out the obvious that they are followers of a movement from like 4 years ago + alt-right cradle + Donald Trump supporters...
Like wtf is wrong with their collective heads? They are a laughing stock to gamers around the world among people who never heard or cared about GG, don't care about politics and doctrines and have no right to vote in USA (or even enter it, due to long term policies or recent Trump's changes of them...). They laugh because Dan is hilariously terrible at the game he is suppose to professionaly preview for gaming journal.

Like grow the F up Dan and the rest. Just run your business professionally and when f-up happens, own up and improve. And f-ups happen in all bussinesses no matter how good they are run. Instead they act as if because games are still pinned with 'entertainment for kids' tag they can act as bunch of teenagers running a school project.

Whatever else can be said about this poor sod just not having a good day - and lord knows I'd have to shake the platformer rust off if I got it - fuck me if Cuphead does not just look gorgeous.

A deliberate stylistic homage to Popeye the Sailorman's style as I understand it.

Tanis:
HOW DARE HE NOT BE A MASTER OF ALL GAMES!!11!!!11!

Like...seriously?
Anyone who thinks a gaming journalist has to be perfect at 'all the games' must think anyone who reports on war fronts should be a former solider/great at the killing and anyone who reports on sports must be a former sports player/great at the ball using.

Oi vey this thread and this 'controversy' is so fucking stupid.

Then again...this is the theme song for those GG folks, so what do you expect?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDlofPAOZy0

Fair bit of difference between being a master, and understanding/reading on screen instructions for the tutorial.

I still can't believe we're on page 5 of a topic about a game journo playing a game bad, sourced from the game journo admitting he played a game bad, all because some nerds got a bug up their butt about an obviously tongue-in-cheek preview and tried claiming the guy was seriously reviewing Cuphead.

That's some primo manufactured outrage.

Like, I've got 17 minutes of video where a mate and I play Tecmo Bowl, and it takes 8 of those minutes for me to figure out how to actually switch targets for a pass, and my mate knows even less about the game than I do.

Gordon_4:
Whatever else can be said about this poor sod just not having a good day - and lord knows I'd have to shake the platformer rust off if I got it - fuck me if Cuphead does not just look gorgeous.

A deliberate stylistic homage to Popeye the Sailorman's style as I understand it.

Goes a bit further back than that even; it's based on some of the really surreal and twisted early days of animation. I got a place in my heart for any game like this with such a distinctive style (Scott Pilgrim and Mercenary Kings being the last examples I can think of that gave me the same tingles).

CaitSeith:

Dreiko:

CaitSeith:

Pics or didn't happen.

I can do you one better, full video!

It doesn't count if she isn't playing it.

PS: LOL, the video is hilarious.

https://youtu.be/e4Xy1cauj0I?t=5m20s

Enjoy. :p

Wow this thread is still going. Well at least you guys are persistent.

Dreiko:

CaitSeith:

Dreiko:

I can do you one better, full video!

It doesn't count if she isn't playing it.

PS: LOL, the video is hilarious.

https://youtu.be/e4Xy1cauj0I?t=5m20s

Enjoy. :p

I'm flattered you still think about me enough to revive this thread after 3 weeks of silence (I think you're even making other members jealous) :)

EDIT: That girl must be a prodigy or something. Lots of people are reporting to have problems with that part of the game.

Haha, I've been off the grid for a while here so I was just catching up. Also they say that the pettier the point the higher the satisfaction of being right about it. Also apparently the kid is a boy from what I gathered from the comments of the video.

I beat the original sonic when I was like, between 3 and 4 so this was quite believable to me. People just tend to suck at games so much that when someone doesn't suck they seem like gods in comparison. You see that a lot in the fighting game scene. And yeah that duo is adorable so we can all leave this pettiness behind us with a smile lol.

Saelune:
It makes me think, sure. But about how trivial this is as a criticism of someone.

I mean really... "He is bad at a random game and thats why his opinions are invalid"?

I don't think you should review something if you are clearly not able to play it properly, unless you are reviewing for other people who can't play it properly, his opinions aren't invalid but they are also not going to give a good picture of what the game is like if his experience is so cluttered with "You Died" screens and he doesn't understand basic game mechanics.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here