One of the most heart-wrenching things that've ever happened to me occurred while trying to research the Super Paper Mario art style.
"Ohh what a beautiful and interesting art style! It is very distinctive! I wonder if anyone else has tried or wanted to try breaking it down and replicating it?" Obliviously, I typed in Super Paper Mario Art Style into my search bar... only to find many people calling it ugly and saying they hate it.
This simply could not be... permanent damage was done to my artistic soul.
No joy? No whimsy in this world? No love of early computer graphics? Of the art that was born from the computer and is difficult to replicate without one? Of the art made when this was something new and fascinating? No love for something unique?
Super Paper Mario don't listen to all those haters I love your geometric art style influenced by what shapes are easily drawn on a computer and the smooth mechanical interpolation within your animations. I love you. Also the music is banger.
425 notes
·
View notes
Very funny to me how Stansas present her character as being so interesting and complex because of her vulnerabilities, while simultaneously ignoring those same vulnerabilities in other characters. Dany is sold as a bridal slave and lacks agency throughout AGOT and after. Her dragons are either too young/small to utilize effectively or locked away for the majority of the story. They aren't some all-powerful trump card that protects her from harm. Arya is captured as a prisoner of war, forced to watch countless people tortured and murdered, and then essentially enslaved in Harrenhal with no way to fight back. She has an entire arc of feeling powerless, of being a "mouse", during ACOK. She doesn't have "kung-fu" or the ability to magically fight her way out of every situation, she's a young child lacking physical strength with only the most basic sword training.
Sansa isn't the only female character, she isn't the only young character, she isn't the only character who suffered, and no one is obligated to prioritize her. I'm so tired of Dany and Arya being mischaracterized and having their stories erased to prop Sansa up. "Sansa has kept her dignity" In other words, let's praise her for having a level of security that Dany and Arya don't have access to. She hasn't ever been forced to make a hard decision which of course means that she's morally superior to them. They can't even admit to themselves that her lack of action is due to her own passivity. If it doesn't fit their delusion, they erase it from the story and expect the rest of us to play along. Ask one of them what they like about her character without bringing up her being the ultimate victim, and I genuinely don't believe they'd be able to give you an answer. They belittle other characters more than they talk about her and these takes just scream insecurity/jealousy at the content and development other characters have in their POVs.
148 notes
·
View notes
biggest disconnect in pathologic's reception has kind of always been a divide between "patho is driven by mechanics" and "patho is driven by story" camps where opinions only ever come from one of these extremes... around p1's development and release the developers considered it exclusively a survival challenge sim, not a game marketed for its story (despite story representing a huge fraction of the time and thought put into it). In The Society Of Dead Poets goes into so much detail about this. and it WAS a stunning technical work under the circumstances, but the complex story was what gave the franchise cult appeal, or at least enough so for it to get a sequel... reviews from the period tend to go along the lines of "this game looks and plays like shit but it's extremely thought-provoking". there's a little to be said about the mainstream view of a "Gamer" in 2005 and what they would be interested in marketing-wise not tracking with story games yet; anyway, the one-dimensionality here was consistent with the studio's approach to games as a whole (cf BoneHouse.ppt).
so IPL's perception of their work was what informed p2's priorities, which turned out to be A Way Better Survival Challenge at the expense of things like characters having complex motivations (expansion on this has been omitted; iykyk), and they did an incredible job with that & basically perfected what they had been going for mechanically. which created this weird divide where p2 fans think 1 isn't worth playing because it's less engaging as a gaming experience, and p1 fans (me included, to be clear) see 2's story changes as a spit in the face of everything that made the series work. like, neither of these are fundamentally incorrect, but they refer to completely non-overlapping paradigms of engaging with the material. when hopefully it can be agreed that a Video Game is comprised of Both a narrative aspect and an interactive aspect, and that they need to work together to create the player's transformative experience (again, premise of BoneHouse.ppt).
Anyway. that helps explain a lot of hbomb's stance on the franchise, particularly that he can endorse patho2 without comment as an ostensibly leftist youtuber when even the most cursory playthrough is enough to let players in on its gleeful centering of ecofascism... that game's representation of colonial relations as an unfixable divide employing the racist trope of reciprocal violence, its obsession with maintaining status quo, and its completely tasteless approach to MMIW are all elements of Story and thus all secondary to p2's huge improvements on the survival system. in the same vein, his discussion of p1's changeling's route is limited to the constant reputation decrease and the repeated quests because those are the only mechanical features introduced over the previous routes, even while clararoute text is fundamental to understanding most characters... his video isn't like Bad for getting the interactive experience p1 would present to you, but it sucks for engaging with the story because it's not about the story. and unfortunately, on discussion posting websites, we do usually post about story
127 notes
·
View notes
It's always funny to me when a big-name youtuber argues vociferously that souls-like games DO have a difficulty setting, it's Playing The Game Right (leveling, build, using summons, etc), and then later on in the same video will have a fifteen minute long section complaining about how certain boss fights completely invalidate certain builds or require you to drastically alter your style of play, and i'm like... I thought you were in FAVOR of this.
And of course they're not, they just don't understand what a difficulty setting IS anymore, and that's completely fair because I think that most DEVELOPERS don't either, but it means that the criticism they make is always couched in a fundamental misunderstanding of the thing they're trying to criticise (and also usually a complete misunderstanding of where the criticism comes from).
And I want to be clear, I've beaten basically every single Dark Souls game, I beat bloodborne, I played shitloads of elden ring and the reason I didn't beat it was because I got bored, and I've done speedruns and soul level 1 runs of dark souls 3. I'm pretty much the dark souls power player that everyone expects would argue AGAINST having difficulty options.
But.
I've been playing thousands of hours of battletech, and the battletech difficulty screen has been the singlehandedly biggest argument I've had change my mind.
In the game, Battletech modifies difficulty per mission by changing the total health of enemies, changing their skills and experience levels, the usual fare of difficulty curves (although damage is never affected, thank god). But having all these granular options can dramatically change the way the game is played without simply affecting health values or hit percentages.
Toggling mech destruction and lethality means that losing a mech in a mission or having a pilot be knocked unconscious removes them permanently. They're killed, destroyed, you need to go get a new one. That's a HUGE change from the base difficulty where having a mech be completely destroyed in combat just removes the weapon components and costs a ton to repair. Likewise, changing the number of parts required to buy or salvage in order to complete a mech DRAMATICALLY changes the game - the maximum amount of parts you can get from a single mech is 3, and usually you only get 1. Needing 3 parts means that if you're lucky, you could see a brand new mech in a mission, blow its head off, and get one for free. Moving that scale up both means that rare or expensive mechs take much much longer to earn, but also that replacing mechs takes much longer (meaning that losses are even more painful).
Like, every single one of these options can dramatically affect how you play the game or change the feel of it to something much more interesting to you as a player - do you want to play a rogue-like game where you have to save and scrounge to get new mechs, and each mech and pilot is a precious resource you have to protect? or do you want to powerscale fast and constantly get new mechs and rare weapons?
And like, having extremely granular options for gameplay isn't for everyone, but then again, there are the owlcat pathfinder CRPGs that do this same thing, but have a base 'easy-normal-hard' sort of slider that automatically selects certain options, and you can adjust them if you want. If you're not interested in going through each slider you can just say 'I'd like normal please' and the game automatically makes all the selections, but you can also stop and say 'hey actually let me turn on permadeath too' and you can do that.
And I think that when people think about difficulty, they think about the most basic 'health and damage adjustments' sliders, and not ANYTHING else that actually have much more of an impact. I will hit this point to my grave that dark souls would massively benefit from difficulty options like turning off instakill effects (like curse or petrification) or removing the harsh penalty of dying when you can't get back to your bloodstain because a) that's often what drive new players off the most, and b) it doesn't fuckin' matter anyway, all you're losing is souls, the only thing it does is make you have to go grind more to make up for it.
And of course, there are always EXTRA challenge runs people come up with - nuzlocke runs of pokemon, soul level 1 runs of dark souls, hell, when I do Battletech I often add additional challenges like 'no intentional destruction of civilian buildings' or 'each mech must be assigned to a pilot and if one of them is sidelined, so is the other'
But challenge runs aren't difficulty settings, and more importantly there's no way to unchallenge run a game. You can decide to make the game harder for yourself, but you can't make the game EASIER. And when people say that you can, they're lying to you. Like yeah, there builds that are very strong in dark souls, and leveling optimally will make the game easier, but if you don't know what optimal leveling looks like, it's pointless. If you have a deep and thorough understanding of the game, and you check the messageboards, and delve through the wiki, and use a couple of exploits, the game will be easy! And if it's still too hard for you after that? Well, go fuck yourself, you just spent hours of your life doing research only to give up on the game anyway.
And the truth is, most people who argue that dark souls shouldn't have a difficulty slider are doing it out of bad faith, because they have a certain amount of ego riding on 'being good at hard game' as a character trait, and making these games more accessible frightens them because what if being good at dark souls isn't actually getting them into heaven
but also because they're somehow afraid that having extra difficulty options in the game will tempt them into choosing them? And then they won't get the 'true experience'?
Gamers are some of the most fragile people in existence that the mere option of reducing difficulty sends them into hysterics.
79 notes
·
View notes
Marc must have gotten some sign of defrosting from Vale istg because in his documentary he was fully prepared to go I don't give a fuck anymore. And he had full vontrol over his doc
But now in the dazn interview he goes like... well its up to him because the door of reconciliation is open
lobs a nuance grenade SORRY... so this IS kind of aligned with how he's acted/talked about valentino since the divorce with the notable exception of that doc (and misano 2019 lol) which is a setting where he had complete authorial control. like it makes sense to me that he's making an effort to avoid any potential negative soundbites to get slapped on headlines (and. well. consistently saying vale is the angry one DOES make vale seem more unreasonable here. marc's like IM not mad UR the one being crazy...), but i ALSO think he keeps it positive because rehashing it HURTS. like i think he will only let out how painful the whole thing was for him in a situation where no one can possibly ask him any follow up because it would literally feel like open heart surgery.
it is also notable to me is how vale and marc's strategies in avoiding those kinds of soundbites are SUPER different... like when he's asked about marc in interviews now, usually valentino always gives a vague compliment about marc's riding style and then immediately changes the subject. MARC on the other hand, has an entirely different game plan that tbqh i think kind of runs away from him sometimes. like he always starts with. 1. he was my hero and my idol and is so charismatic and i wanted to fuck him so bad. 2. EYE dont have any issues with him that's all in his brain. and then 3. valentino PLEASEEE call me back. and in THIS video he is NOTABLY effusive oh my god. jesus christ. like yeah keep it positive do all that PR stuff but marc my man you dontttt need to monologue for two whole minutes on how obsessed with him you are while holding a photo of you looking at him contemplating dick in silence. like whats wrong with you lol.... never has anyone begged more publicly for old man dick
51 notes
·
View notes