@mbun I suppose, I guess most every game feels like that to me.
Posts made by MiserablePerson
RE: Xbox "Not E3" Showcase thread
At random I was watching the GT reactions to the 2015 Bethesda E3 Presentation today and think it's interesting to compare how Fallout 4 was presented and received to Starfield yesterday. Fallout was in a conference where it was able to take up 30 minutes to really soak at a time where BGS was on a run of hits, and there was a ton of energy and confidence in what was being shown. Starfield's equivalent yesterday was about half that time where instead BGS is a little under fire, and there is no energy in a digital presentation outside of a more subdued Todd Howard. They both hit a lot of the same notes, though Starfield was more focused due to the time window. GT at the time was loving Fallout 4, but yesterday during Starfield it felt like there was constant nitpicking and comparisons to other things from the Allies looking to detract.
Its just interesting how time and other circumstances can impact showings when this is that same studio's first full game since Fallout 4, which while disappointing to some, was at least good. That isn't to say there aren't reasons, Todd was a public face of Fallout 76 despite not heading it he pumped it up which came back to bite him when it initially launched, Bethesda stumbled on a couple of other games as well, they sold to Microsoft which some didn't like, and showed off multiple new IP's that some may not have liked the direction of. And to be fair to the Allies, its partially a different crew than who was reacting to that and it was SEVEN years ago now, which is crazy in and of itself, things and people change so I wouldnt expect a 1:1 reaction. Its just interesting.
I really hope this works out, I liked a lot of what I saw but it feels like everyone is just waiting for the dam to break which is a tough spot to be in.
RE: Xbox "Not E3" Showcase thread
Thought that was really good all around, especially with the focus being on the next 12 months. There's so many good games coming out and it put the focus on things that have been complained about the past few years - gameplay and in the near term timeframe. Not everything hit for me, like I don't care all that much about Kojima, or Hollow Knight, or Diablo but felt there was a ton of variety and some solid indies showcased as well. Due to the restraint I don't think it was all it could be, but it keeps the focus on the present and there is a ton there.
Redfall, Plague Tale, Forza Horizon 5 Hot Wheels expansion, Lightyear Frontier, The Last Case of Benedict Fox, Pentiment, Cocoon, Starfield were some personal favorites.
That isn't everything, and includes stuff from other shows, but there's so much coming.
RE: Mario Strikers: Battle League
Yea, there's a couple of ways they could handle 2v2 but this probably isn't the best option. 4v4 would I'm sure be fun if they could make it work connection wise - haven't looked but wouldn't shock me if thats at least a local option.
Players just need to be confident on who they're in control of, and that would obviously lock you into a character. What works in FIFA Pro Clubs is you can all control a singular player, then you can have 1 player control the rest of the team if needed. The issue might be exacerbated by whether both players are using auto or manual switching, pretty sure everyone I've played with including myself chose manual.
Referencing 2v2, we would play Pro Clubs all the time back in the day and 1 user would be locked to his 1 player while the other user would control Any, or the remaining 10 players on the pitch. Here you could do 3 & 1.
RE: Mario Strikers: Battle League
Just played three more games, I'm 5-0 so far. Don't want to form too strong of an opinion yet, but its such a frantic pace that the 2v2 mode is really finicky. I've been pretty in sync with my partners so far, and it can be kinda fun to try and setup and protect each other during super strikes, but its still a weird feeling. Looking forward to solo matches when full release comes because it is enjoyable, and the connection issues haven't been too big a deal, though you can feel the stress on the game with all the action going on.
RE: EZA Forums' Noteworthy New Games of June 2022
Card Shark released June 2nd, and have played the opening chapter - its really cool. Its surprisingly pretty humorous, which I wasn't really expecting. Art and style is beautiful and the game itself is fresh and original. Looking forward to dive in further, as I'm pretty sure the story gets pretty crazy.
Mario Strikers: Battle League comes June 10th, and as a massive soccer and Mario sports fan, will pick this up. The online test is happening right now, and while I expect there to be issues regarding online play and content, I'm looking forward to it.
Also looking forward to The Quarry as well, I've rewatched the Supermassive GT/EZA streams recently and am eager to play this one myself before seeing how their stream differs.
RE: Mario Strikers: Battle League
Played the original a ton on Gamecube, never did get around to the Wii version though which looked annoying.
Managed to play through all the tutorial stuff and played a couple of matches during the 1st session as well. I'm relatively impressed from a mechanics standpoint, though I wouldn't say it was a totally smooth online performance. 2v2 online is a little odd and the connection never felt rock solid... its hard for me to think I'll play a ton of online, and if I do it would be 1v1. Gameplay hasn't changed much, some thoughtful tweaks have been made, so I think it has the base to be fun and competitive on a game to game basis. Aggression has it's rewards and detriments and can be capitalized on if overdone.
My main concerns are with longevity and modes, and its something I fear will constantly hang over these Mario spinoffs forever. I just don't know how it will sustain, or keep someone coming back often outside of a casual, local setting. I'm getting it, but I expect it to be a serious and valid issue in the coming discourse.
RE: Whats your opinion on the Marvel Cinematic Universe?
It's an achievement - just one I have no interesting in following or caring about despite thinking a lot of the Marvel properties are cool. I liked the original Iron-Man when I saw it, unaware it was the first step into the MCU, and never had any real interest going forward even when Nick Fury shows up at the end. The Incredible Hulk didn't really look interesting, and I didn't like Iron-Man 2 whenever I saw it. I had no interest in Thor, Captain America: The First Avenger, or Marvel's The Avengers. It was around the leadup to Age of Ultron that I finally watched both Captain America films and Iron-Man 3 and didn't like any of them. After hearing how much praise was given in particular to The Winter Soldier, it seemed pretty apparent I wasn't jiving with what they were doing. I randomly saw Guardians of the Galaxy and enjoyed it, but never saw the sequel and have seen nothing else but a lot of trailers and clips from other films.
It's hard not to be a little cynical toward it from the outside - the fervor for what's next is crazy, and its just non stop. I'm not sure an entire universe should hinge on post credit teases. It seems harsh to critique them for all feeling the same, but that's how they appear. Its like watching the doughnuts on the conveyer belt getting glazed at Krispy Kreme when you see the marketing. There's basically two character types, and they both just quip slightly differently which is off putting for however many characters there seem to be now. All this to say, for them to pull it off and have as many people entrenched is remarkable - just look at the state of DC's movies in comparison from a point of continuity... or how the same parent company has butchered Star Wars.
I can't say I won't watch any going forward, but I like Spider-Man and haven't watched any of his three solo movies yet so I don't know what it will take to drag me back in, I've watched the formula and I've had my fill - but I am genuinely curious to see how long it can go on because people seem to eat it up.
RE: The EZA Community Top 20 Best of 2007!
When I scrubbed through 2007, surprisingly I couldn't put together more than 4 games I'd actually played so I skipped the vote. Just wanted to say I came to Assassin's Creed probably a year or so after launch and knew little about it other than a recommendation from a friend. Was very thrown off by the future setting, but it intrigued me, especially as the game inched closer to the end. I'm still incredibly impressed with what this series started as, which makes me all the more disappointed in what it became. II was a good follow-up, but I skipped on Revelations and Bloodlines, and waited until III came out which killed the franchise for me. While I no longer have much interest in playing them, I still hold the original in very high regard and don't understand when I see it put down in modern lists.
RE: EZA curates August games: What are you anticipating? What's worth checking out?
Yep, Psychonauts 2 and 12 Minutes for me - currently going through Psychonauts for the first time in preparation, really looking forward to both.
RE: Your Pop-Tarts & Toaster Strudels for Q3 2021
Prior Pop-Tart's (Q1 - Returnal, Very Good) (Q2 - New Pokémon Snap, Solid)
Prior Toaster Strudel's (Q1 - Riders Republic, Undetermined) (Q2 - Mario Golf: Super Rush, Middling)
Death's Door - Cute crows.
WarioWare: Get It Together! - I see this struggling with reviews.
@oscillator Conversely I don't think I've ever been as sick of sports as I am right now, I'm an NC State grad. To those unaware, our baseball team was just eliminated due to Covid protocols while on the brink of reaching the national championship. Gut wrenching.
RE: Metroid Dread thread
@yoshi I'm not really sure you're grasping the argument, but that's fine. You could apply a similar argument to a ton of different games if you choose to. This isn't the first, only, or last.
I don't give a damn about Final Fantasy VII so I'm not sure if that's supposed to cut at me, it doesn't; I also think it's crazy how they're treating that rollout but that's a whole different thing.
RE: What are your Top 5 games shown at E3?
I'm taking this literally, and when I see the word shown, its hard for me to even think of five. There were fun teasers, games I'm excited about, games that will be great and already know about, but almost none of those were due to their showings at the conference. That being said, the clear winner for me would be Forza Horizon 5; it looked and performed great for a cross-gen game.
RE: Metroid Dread thread
Pricing it at $60 implies the game is more special than its counterparts that were released at half the cost and lower for the past ~10 years. If you don't have higher expectations for a cheeseburger priced at $20 than you would if it was priced at $10 or $5, then I don't know what to tell you.
RE: Metroid Dread thread
I believe it does for multiple reasons. First of all, you have to try and understand the developer's intent with the project. I've already gone into this above and listed multiple reasons why the game might look as it seems to. Beyond that though, I really feel like people who just played something like Ratchet & Clank are bringing those next-gen, high-end modern hardware expectations into a game that's being designed to run smoothly on a 4+ year old glorified handheld.
There's not really examples of games that do what Metroid Dread is trying to do on the Switch that look much better, despite all the talk of "competition". The closest is probably Ori, and I've already touched on how that game sort of performs what it does, as well as technical hiccups I've run into while playing Ori you definitely wouldn't want to feel with an E.N.M.I. chasing you down.
I also believe the focus of this game to be the atmosphere and the story, instead of the pure graphical punch. Samus Returns came out about 4 years ago on the 3DS, so even though this game has been conceptualized off and on for ages, that definitely doesn't mean it has been in technical development for this time. There's no way it even could have been, given the Switch is only so old itself. Samus Returns was presented as a stop gap until Prime 4 when it was revealed, and I have to imagine, to some degree, Metroid Dread shares that fate of them wanting to quickly get a new entry out once they knew Prime 4's development needed to be restarted. That's not to say I think it has been rushed by any means, but I'm sure they didn't want to linger on the project too long after the storied history around it combined with Prime 4's situation. The fans have waited long enough.
Their intent seemed pretty clear from the trailers and commentary, they wanted to bring back 2D Metroid and continue the story. I don't want to, nor should anyone, compare the fidelity of this to a PS5 exclusive, that would be silly. Sad to hear you've had issues with Ori, I feel like I've mostly seen only praise for the Switch version - I'd try it myself but I'm not big on double dipping. I would be curious to know just how much of this game was hammered out prior to the completion of Metroid: Samus Returns, either way I doubt development time was a serious issue here, I don't think it was rushed or anything.
I don't agree with that, except in the very basic sense of them both being Metroidvania, Metroid games. If you look back at Samus Returns, the level of detail is greater than what we're seeing with this game, mostly to accent the 3D effect of the 3DS, although that's hard to witness without playing the game on the hardware itself. If you just look at videos of the game, things will look very flat with low resolution, pretty basic lighting / textures that reflect the 3DS's limitations.
Not an insult, this is just a natural extension of what was a seemingly good looking 3DS game.
I'm not so sure. On top of the basic Metroidvania type game formula we're used to seeing, they've clearly put more budget into the presentation, which becomes apparent during more action focused parts of the game. When Samus gets caught by an E.N.M.I., is charging her powered up charge beam, or is performing special attacks against bosses, the perspective will shift to something akin to a cutscene, except seemingly running in-game, with much more detailed visuals. This is something games like Ori lack entirely, on top of the other reasons I've previously presented for why Ori on Switch definitely is not the shining example people seem to think it is. I could honestly go off on an entire rant about how unpolished that game seems on multiple fronts, given I happen to be playing it currently.
I'm really curious about your issues, that sucks. I remember a thread which complained about the game on ResetEra and it ended up being something related to the physical version, because there were a lot of people attesting to the quality of the port. Regarding the presentation comment, I'll just say I disagree; everything is actively happening, I don't need to be pulled away from the action in those moments for it to feel like there's production.
They've made Metroid games in the past 15+ years. They just haven't continued the story of Metroid (much) in that time, which none of your complaints seem to be focused around.
100%, I'm just going off their presentation where they billed this as 'Metroid 5' and the 'first new 2D Metroid in 19 years.' When I say sitting on it for 15+ years, I'm alluding to making new games. They can sit on it for as long as they want, I don't care, but they're treating it like a big deal and that is part of the pitch.
It is very high up there on Amazon's best sellers. The Special Editions and amiibo sold out basically instantly. I'm not going to pretend there's not others like yourself complaining about the look of it right now, but end of the day people seem just fine paying $60+ for this game. Value isn't determined solely by graphical fidelity. The game appears to run silky smooth too, so from a technical standpoint it isn't bad either.
I don't want to wade too deeply into this, because I agree value isn't determined by any singular aspect of a game, I also think some the games this will be compared to may have been underpriced at launch. On the other hand, something selling well doesn't mean it merits the cost. We all know why those are sold out, and it isn't just because people think it looks good.
Yeah, I understand. Honestly, it is frustrating with how Nintendo games are with sales, because normally I'd just tell you to wait for a sale if it doesn't appear to be worth the $60 for you. I guess you can try your luck down the line on the second hand market. Personally, I'd prioritize how the game runs, feels, and nails the atmosphere it is going for over how dense it is visually, but I do expect the full game to have at least some chambers / caves you walk into that just immediately wow you with whatever is going on in there. Still I'm personally holding off on condemning the visuals before we get the full product, because we really don't know yet what they're saving for release. They only showed the very beginning.
Its really hard for me to concisely explain my feelings regarding Nintendo. Personally, regarding this game, its very possible I will buy it at $60, knowing full well it may be overpriced compared to the competition. I've bought a number of games for the Switch I think are priced terribly, and in some cases I can reasonably rationalize that; it just gets tiring for that to feel constant knowing full well no other publisher could for that exact product. Please don't take my comments as some final verdict, I just thought I would be more impressed at the jump given the heritage, price, and pitch.
RE: Metroid Dread thread
@El-Shmiablo Yea, I think it's great they're returning to it, I hope it delivers for fans.
@mbun I have never made or published a game, and don't think that matters in regards to this conversation. There's arguably nothing wrong with how it looks if this was any game, but its being billed as a best in class return for a franchise, and I don't feel what was shown matches that expectation. This looks like an upscaled Metroid: Samus Returns, a $40 3DS game. Just from what they've shown, its hard to warrant a $60 price tag for this when something like Ori and the Will of the Wisps, a game developed by an indie studio over five years for Xbox launched at $30. It doesn't add up, the only difference is this is an iconic Nintendo franchise they've sat on for 15+ years, so they feel they can launch it however they please and people should just accept it. Again, its just a value proposition issue for me, it can be great and I hope it does, but I feel it has a lot to do to warrant the asking price.
RE: Metroid Dread thread
As someone with almost no emotional reverence for the series, but who respects its status and place in history, my issue is the value proposition just doesn't line up with the competition which should lead to higher expectations. Now, this isn't something exclusive to Metroid, it is a common issue for me with a lot of Nintendo titles. This is a new, $60 entry in an esteemed franchise which is going to be compared to great games that released at half the cost, or lower. There has been a flood of these games over the last 5-10 years trying to satiate fans who love this style, and this is asserting itself as the best of the best by just naming it Metroid Dread. While I don't expect it to have an art style similar to Ori or Hollow Knight, it should damn sure look better than this - to act like it shouldn't is crazy.