In early days of Youtube, criticism and "negativity" was the main thing. Seeing sacred cows get analyzed and broken apart and told why it's overrated and why you're an idiot for thinking it's as good as it is was par for the course.
This style of discourse is the norm here....because this forum isn't normies.
Now on Youtube any criticism of even a video game is delivered with 1000 caveats or an extreme level of irony like "can you imagine actually going against the grain like some sort of chud". There's a guy something Mayo who is hugely controversial for daring to make a video saying Arkham Knight sucks.
Videos like that were common place back in the day. Razorfist is well known for it, and while I never liked this other guy, Zero Punctuation was also known for it.
Even mainstream channels like Gametrailers, Screwattack, if they had an opinion that was against the grain, they'd just say it.
Try finding a video of "insert game sucks" and not be inundated with ironic videos where they just parrot the consensus.
The really unsettling thing is if they're unwilling to go against the grain on video games, how weak and prone to "agreeability" are they on actual taboo issues?
This is why I say feminine. Don't make waves, this opinion could hurt somebody....what if that's someone's favorite game, me critiquing it without 1000 caveats could leave them crying into their pillow, I can't have that.
I remember listening to podcasts back in the day, like PS3 era and people would talk about how in Japan they give everything a 9 out of 10 and games journalism is useless because of "politeness society". Well we're basically there on Youtube. People who's livlihoods aren't even at stake are afraid to say something sucks or why something sucks.
You get called edgy for saying something like "Half Life 2 is overrated or boring".
You could make dead baby jokes on early Youtube and you still wouldn't be called edgy.
If you're as soft as tissue paper, everything feels edgy to you.
Arkham Knight does suck, the retards trying to retroactively rewrite opinion of it and Final Fantasy 13 (for some ungodly reason) don't matter. It's an objectively mediocre game, it looks incredible, probably the best looking game I've ever played and runs buttery smooth even on console, but everything else is so absolutely inferior to the other Arkham games it's absurd. I was (and still am) a massive Arkham fan and people such as myself were saying how much it sucked when it came out, you remove the Batmobile segments and it's still a mediocre game, the boss fights are boiled down to stealth and spamming the grappling hook on the gargoyles, stealth segments with the Batmobile, and fighting waves of enemies for one of the biggest reasons, they also made it braindead easy for even the lowest common retard on even the hardest difficulties (not saying AA or AC were hard but alot harder). Also, I'd recommend SyntheticMan for reviews now, though he's sometimes too nice like he was to Baldur's Ga(y)te 3 and will refuse to play a game because it looks too anime-like (he muted me from chat for suggesting Second Story R and Octopath Traveler 1 haha).
I used to like Synth but I realized our taste is games is entirely different with almost no overlap, so his reviews have no meaning to me.
Yeah, that's fair. He does tend to gravitate towards "baby games" and avoid some genres and games. I can see that, I enjoy him for his unfiltered opinions but I can see why you wouldn't enjoy him anymore.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47YPs-qwNQU
Hey Michael, try going to the left...
Yeah, it's ridiculous but it's happening. Somehow these retards think Final Fantasy 13 is a great game now, not just a great game but a great RPG in general, one of the best of not the best Final Fantasy game (2 or 12)
I don't begrudge his baby games. It's quite refreshing for a non-pozzed game reviewer to openly like games like that instead of posturing as 'ultra hardcore difficulty pro-gamer sadist' for the internet toughguy points. There tends to be a kneejerk reaction to signal in-group allegiance by being as opposite of the other side as one can be. Since faggot game reviewers can't finish a tutorial level without yellow paint and a hint every 8 seconds, some based reviewers feel like they need to present this sort of 'I play nothing but Dark Souls on hardcore for 28 hours straight' personality. I find that 'the difficulty of the entertainment on a screen is an expression of my self worth' sort of attitude nauseating. I appreciate Synth doesn't really give a shit about that and just likes his Kirby and Donkey Kong. I just don't really care for those games myself.
I fully agree, I like him personally because he plays whatever genre he can even if he avoids some, because for me, that's what I love most about video games, the variety. Like during the PS2 era you had Socom, Splinter Cell, Burnout, Final Fantasy, Twisted Metal, Tekken or Melee, Need For Speed to name a few seperate genres or sub genres within genres, and it was all good, to me video games are at their best when there are multiple genres having games made for each genres and taking risks even if the games suck ass, not this current industry standard of amorphous blobs where every game has similar mechanics or rips off a game from 10 years ago but the studio updates it for the even more modern audience, the games can be good but what's the point if they're all so similar to each other.
My number one problem with Arkham games was the combat. When i played those as a kid i never really paid attention to finer details of game-design but replaying them later i noticed an awful mechanic where the enemy starts the punching animation, starts moving towards you (mostly by being magnetized, without moving legs in sync) and if you dodge at this moment the game moves him towards you still because he's still being scripted to hit you. If you just wait half a second for the hit icon to appear you can safely dodge. Once i noticed this i couldn't stop noticing this mechanic in every other game with this combat system and it pisses me off endlessly. And the fact that no one talks about it is even more infuriating.
Totally agreed on Arkham Knight. I haven't played it since launch on PS4 but I remember the whole game waiting for it to "get good" and it never came.
Also Arkham Origins is good, I don't know why that games hated. I think people give too much allegiance to "this is the official studio and the other studios games are crappy imitations. It was like call of duty. Infinity ward was seen as the A team and Treyarch as the B team. For a short while it was "yeah whatever I guess it's fine, but when the next modern warfare comes out, that's when it will be the real one we want.
Then it got flipped once Black Ops became so popular and Infinity Ward was seen as the B team.
Same with Dark Souls 2 which is the one I think is the most interesting but was written off because it didnt have the main director as Dark Souls 1 and Demon Souls.
Well same with Origins. Because it wasn't rocksteady and didn't have Kevin Conroy or Mark Hamil it was dismissed. I don't care about the story, just the atmosphere and gameplay and so origins is excellent. It might even be a tad more fun than Arkham City, but it's pretty close either way. I certainly like the atmosphere better in Origins. It feels like Batman Returns how Christmasy it is.