JDINCINERATOR last edited by JDINCINERATOR
If my latest Easy Allies Q&A question is anything to go by, it's quite easy to rile the Allies up when you put forward challenging perspectives. They're right to be riled up though, usually I put forward statements that get them to think and respond however they please-think of them like a box of chocolates with varying flavours-some you will adore and want to consume more of, but others you will spit out without a second thought. As Brandon rightly said I like to give the Allies spice from time to time, but like a fleck of hot sauce to gently bleed their salivary glands with instead of a great huge Chicken Jalfrezi to make them sweat like Donald Trump stewing on a rotisserie.
The recent Q&A isn't the first time I've fielded a set of spicy statements, last year I took aim at some of their favourite games to see how they will defend them. I in no way intend to insight them in the style of some kind of heated argument, all I want is for them to give their honest takes and possibly explain them. I can honestly say that I learn a lot from the Allies and sometimes I feel that dropping in
a splosh of Tabasco makes things memorable and enticing.
Loads of Q&A questions are gentle, and usually I follow suit because I don't want them to think I have it out for them and of course I don't-but when I decide to sprinkle some in I do so with the intent of getting their genuine response. It's not about making them hot-headed and defensive, it's about their reactions-the greater their reactions the more memorable the Q&A is I feel. Also I am very critic-minded just like they are, there are many opinions that I just want to get their views on and times when I express my own views and would like to know theirs.
Some of the statements I don't really agree with but I inserted them to see how the Allies feel-such as the case with the new Saints Row. Ok I know I was doubtful when Saints Row was announced and thought it looked like Fortnite, but honestly when I saw gameplay of it I felt better about it.
The statement about Kena: Bridge of Spirits was inline with my perspective as I really love the visuals yet the gameplay was rather dry and derivative as it has taken bits from various other PS properties and bunged them in. Kena and the game's vibrant world wasn't that interesting to me either. I did quite like how Brad compared the game to early PS2 platformers, that was a good way of looking at Kena, but to me I have constantly been convinced PS4 games were too transfixed on emotional storytelling rather than outright fun, and Kena doesn't do much to make me think otherwise.
When it came to the third statement about scores being disproportionate to the writing, Ben did a fantastic job of explaining his thoughts as did Huber on the matter. Review scores are tough to line up accurately with the words in the review and people's opinions on media can change constantly-like I feel better about Far Cry 5 now having played Far Cry 6 (we'll get to that in a little bit). I got the idea to include this statement from a Dunkey video about review scores and how IGN gave New Super Mario Bros U a 9.1 despite the critic being very critical about the game, pointing out too many flaws and not accentuating the positives enough.
My fourth statement about guns and the amount of bullets it takes to kill enemies in some games does get to me. A blast from a shotgun shell should kill any enemy or at least deplete a significant chunk of a health bar. I value immediacy in games and I don't like to mess around and be too patient with games that are too slow when it comes to dealing damage. When it comes to melee weapons like swords, spears, axes and so on, I think that the amount of damage dealt should depend on the enemy. Yet in Monster Hunter you could be with three others trying to tame an almighty beast and it ends up devolving into a waiting game whilst mashing buttons obsessively to finish it off. The Allies answered saying it depends on the game and that's definitely true, but certain games defeat the purpose of having powerful weaponry if you have to unload and scrap way too much to get the job done.
Now my last statement about Far Cry 6. I've made it clear how dumb I think Far Cry 6 is whilst maintaining that it's good enough generally as a Far Cry game. Perhaps I exaggerated about Anton Castillo not appearing too much, but I generally don't think he's a very good antagonist. He's a smart-speaking El Presidente who uses manipulation as a weapon but he's not detestable at all and he really doesn't have that Far Cry antagonistic zing the other villains do. Far Cry 3 had Vaas and his definition of insanity, Far Cry 4 had Pagan Min's flamboyant slant, Far Cry 5 had false hope and promises of Joseph Seed. The way I see it Anton does evil things because he is evil and tries to convince Yara that all is swell. As far as the "feeling like Frank Grimes while Far Cry 6 acts like Homer Simpson" line, that's me displaying how I feel when Far Cry 6 doesn't change the Far Cry formula and does a lot of stupid stuff, but it's still appreciated heavily for it. I know that sounds very holier than thou and bigoted of me in a sense, but since FC6 was announced I feared it'll just be more of the same and that's what gets to me even though it's still a good game in places. I prefer Far Cry 5 honestly because I felt more in-tune with the world and the characters, and although Far Cry 6 is in some way more inspired and takes a few minor steps forward such as putting you in the shoes of a character who can talk-Far Cry 6 annoys me in ways that makes me believe it defies sense.