You’re ok with pretending to be someone you’re not in every other game you play. You’re definitely not a hero, veteran, combat expert, scientist, alien, or machine, so why do you play those games?
I mean… I won’t willingly choose a female character to play as because of a bit of (what my trans roommate said was effectively) gender dysphoria. So like in Cyberpunk if I play the female V I feel weird because I have a harder time RPing a female character than a male character for some dumb little gaybrain reason. However I don’t need to RP Lara Croft… she just… is. Same with Aloy in Horizon. I couldn’t give less of a tittering fuck playing as those characters and actively enjoy it.
Saying “Nah women icky” and refusing to play ANY is just fucking weird dude
I remember playing the first game when it was released in the Orange Box. I want to say I made it through at least halfway before realizing the player character was a woman. Not that it really makes any difference in the scope of the game, but they did a great job at presenting her as just another faceless silent protagonist.
I went through it pretty quickly the first time. Saw the orange jumpsuit and assumed small framed man. Most games back then either let you know that you would be playing a woman on the box art or allowed for character customization and was probably an RPG.
It was a welcome change from playing the archetypical dude all the time.
“Bro, I’m basically the same as Batman or Master Chief. I could be a medieval fantasy wizard or a cyborg assassin, because I know they have a dick and balls in there. But a woman? That’s too far man.”
I almost never pick female character options in games for this reason. I’m not a woman. I am the main character, I don’t want to “be” a woman.
…but games where you don’t pick? Who gives a fuck, man lol. Do you not watch movies with female leads?? I am not the main character in those games, I am experiencing someone else’s story.
you’re not pretending to be. you’re playing another character.
wait, what is an “interior” quality? so do you only play characters that have—or more likely lack—the same facial hair that you do?
do you have a six pack? cause a lot of game characters do and i don’t think you should play them unless you can cut glass with your abs.
what about hair and eye color? surely you don’t pretend to have different color hair, that’s disgusting; women do that eww very feminine energy.
and of course playing any superhero, magic character, any fantasy race or scifi species … all out of the question, clearly all of them exterior qualities.
I’m assuming—nay, concluding all of this because surely you’re the kind of guy who has consistent principles and this isn’t simply a case of making up a dumb excuse to sound barely more sophisticated than “but girls have cooties”
I’m curious, do you feel you have an inability to think about things from other perspectives in any other part of your daily life? Is abstract thought a challenge for you?
This is an unusual take in my opinion, if you’re being serious of course. Video games are all about pretending. I’m not a serial killer, but I’ve played one. I’m not a taxi driver, but I’ve played one. I’m not a plumber, but I’ve played one. It’s pretty odd to say “I can’t play Spyro because I’m simply not a dragon.”
A lot of folks that have been Satisfactory fans for years are just now realizing the PC is not only female, but also robustly so. And they’re starting to complain about it.
Some of the negative reviews for Eternal Strands over on Steam are hilarious. Because the guys that don’t outright hate being forced to play as a woman take issue with the lack of het romance options. Specifically with having to choose between the “bishie elf” or a “giant blue walrus-bear”.
And they also feel that the walrus-bear romance is less emotionally impactful than the other options.
The people I saw boycotting it, myself included, didn’t think that our absence would kill the game. It should have, because people shouldn’t be supporting a rich, powerful, raging transphobe but they knew it wouldn’t. Meanwhile “go woke go broke” really just doesn’t work unless your entire business hinges on a large amount of terrible people, like the customer base for cheap beer that dared try to treat people like people.
Besides, if your opinion is “they put a gay person near this game and that’s why I won’t play it” vs “the person who gets a shitload of money frok this game is actively working against human rights” and you think those are equal arguments I got a few bridges over distant water I’d love to introduce to.
Edit: Sorry, didnt realise how much I wrote. I will totally understand if you dont read all that.
“Go woke, go broke” isnt about what you are saying its about. It is for some people, those horrible maga cunts, but for the majority it means something else.
The problem is that word “woke”. It means different things to different people. You, I imagine, would say it meant its original meaning. To call out social injustice. Yes? But around the time of the rise of the online influencer, 4chan, started a trend of using “woke” ironically to describe online influencers who used social justice issues for their own benefit. ie “Dont forget to like, share and subscribe so we can fight racism together!”. Those people didnt give a fuck about social issues, only the money they get by saying the right things. Now, at some point, the maga fuckwits misunderstood the 4chan use, and started using it to mean anything that didnt have a white straight male in the lead role.
Now, what “go woke, go broke” means to the majority, the normal people. If that if you make movies, games, tv shows that pander to the perpetually online, people will stop buying your shit. And its true. Not because its a girl in the lead role, or a black guy, and an LGBT person. But because these characters tend to fucking suck.
Ill give you the most obvious example. Rey from the sequel trilogy. She is, what would become known as, a disney girlboss. The girlboss isnt just a female lead. Theres loads of great female leads in great movies. No, the girlboss is like a mary sue, but worse. If you look at Rey, the character, shes great at everything. Everyone loves her. etc etc. But she also, loves to tell(not show) the audience how much of independent woman she is. Did you notice, that she never loses a fight with Kylo Ren? Except once, which wasnt a fight, she was just captured. And that was only done to show as that she didnt need any help, that she could save herself. But the real damage is that because the character is never allowed to fail, she never grows. And worse than that, Kylo Ren is never a threat to her. He doesnt win in light sabre duel, a force dual or anything else. Hes not threat to her what so ever. That makes for a bad villain. And having good villains, is what makes heroes great.
Now, you can look anywhere you want. And you can see the girlbosses and online pandering shit everywhere. And you can also see those franchise, dying. Disney, bought Marvel and Star Wars because they were a girls brand, and wanted to reach the boys market as well. But in the past decade, they have taken both of those brands into the girls camp. So much so, that variety just did a piece of the Disney looking at way to get gen z boy/men back into their brands.
Marvel movies over the past 5 years, are dying a death. The Marvels making less than a 100m domestic, after the first movie making for a billion WW. Even WW money, the Marvel only just manages to reach 200m. And that was on a production budget of over 230m, not contenting marketing and all the other costs that would take it well north of 300m. All these bad movies, with terrible girlbosses, that are just women given toxic masculinity traits, have done so much damage that only a handful of movies now are getting past 500m WW.
No one wanted to play the new dragon age game, because it was cringe as fuck. But oh, look how many people played Baulders gate 3? Almost like including non straight white men into gaming, isnt a problem after all. Almost like, its the writing and the presentation thats the problem.
So whenever you see “Go woke, Go broke”. For the majority, it means stop writing dog shit that panders to perpetually online people who wont go to watch it, or play it.
And as for Hogwarts, who cares? Shes already made money off the licencing. Shes going to be making money on the new tv shows too. Who gives a fuck what she thinks, or what she posts online? You dont have to agree with her. In fact, you probably shouldnt. But then maybe, you shouldnt have made her villain either. Because, as you say, shes got fuck tonnes of money. And at the start all she was doing was speaking out for female women. Not against trans woman. But you all ganged up, and turned her into the monster shes become. She was one of the most left wing people on the fucking planet. And she got turned into a monster, because she wanted womens voices to be heard on the issue as well, and didnt want the language changed to accommodate others. I mean, you do remember that this all started because of the push to refer to women by their biological functions, right?
This whole argument, the culture wars, the gender wars, the trans wars, could all be avoided by just talking to each other. But no, “everyone who doesnt agree with me is a cunt” is everyone mindset. And its escalating into the real world. America is a fucking hell hole just now. The UK, not much better, and worse looming on the horizon. And for what? Because some fucking bigots who hate white men got power in the entertainment industry? And all of sudden instead of their being something for everyone, there was only every things for those social media deemed worthy. We cant even get a hot white girl into a pair of fucking jeans, without people crying online that is nazi propaganda.
Have whatever characters you want. But make them real people, not lectures, not panders, real. That means relatable. Like, imagine the last of us. But instead of brothers, Joel and Tommy are lovers. The story doenst change. Almost nothing changes. But Joel, would still be relatable and likeable. Because it was his character that spoke to people, not the fact he was straight. Shit, look at black sails. That did have a gay lead character. And he was awesome. Totally fucking relatable. Brilliant tv show by the way if you havent watched it. Point is, make good shows, good movies, good games and you can avoid the word “woke” going anywhere near your product.
I’ll be honest, I wanted to read it all but the skim seemed enough and moving my trans friend 3hrs away today is taking it outta me.
I can counter with one simple argument: Straight characters often suck rocks, are subject to the same lazy writing, and there are so many dude “girlbosses” in fiction it would tiring if we weren’t desenstized to it.
And that’s what’s really happening. We aren’t used to seeing a female lead all that often, especially one who is just a person and not ultimately relying on male characters. If we want to talk about pandering writing we can look no further than all the incredibly forced straight romances in media and we’ll have enough shitty material to last a lifetime. They’ll force anyone together so long as their genitals match up just so a movie can have a romance aspect when it never needed one. If their private bits don’t match it’s suddenly “pandering” and people clamber to demand some kind of justification as if there needs to be a special reason why someone is gay in the first place.
Youre right, there is male mary sues, and they suck too. I mean, The Rock has it in his contract that hes not allowed to lose a fight, and people just arent turning up for him like they were. But hes not a girlboss, a girlboss is its own unique thing, because we know The Rock sucks, but no one is calling us racist for saying it.
But look at Ghostbusters 2016 all the way to the Acolyte, and all you get is “if you dont like it, its cos your sexist/racist/homophobic”. Does that sound right to you? The general audience, is all racists? That youtube grifters convinced 153 million households around the world not to watch a good show because there was a gay black girl in it? Sorry, not for me.
No one is telling me The Rock is fucking amazing in Black Adam, and then calling me a cunt for saying its a rubbish movie. But I said I didnt like the last of us part 2, and I was sexist and a homophobe. And no matter how detailed I made the point that it was a bad deconstruction of righteous avenger, no one would hear a word of it. I was just sexist and homophobic.
And this is getting to the larger point, where the companies making these things are painting the fans of them, as incels when they dont like it. Funny how we were incels when we didnt like bad movies like The Green Lantern… And then on top of that, you have things like She Hulk and The Batman making incels the villains. Oh what could they possibly be saying here?
Last thing Ill say on the subject is this. I grew up in the 80s. When I was a kid, I bullied for liking star trek, star wars, marvel comics etc. Called name, beaten, all that great stuff. Now that Im older, Im still being called names now that those things are popular, or were popular. And it was the same crowd both times. The popular kids, who thought they were too good for nerd stuff in the past and now think it should change in the future to reflect them. The only problem with that is, that they dont actually care about it. And now, the nerds like me have been chased off. We are going either. And thats how you take a 2 billion a movie franchise, and turn it into a tv franchise that cant even make CW numbers.
Theres really no way around it. The treatment of the core audience, has chased everyone away. Star Wars, Marvel, etc. And now Disney is looking for a new IP to bring the boys back… Its insane. They had two of the biggest boy brands on the planet, and then made a massive big deal about making them for women. Who dont care about it. Cos most women, dont care about that stuff. Most probably just go with their boyfriends, but that they arent going…
Anyway, thanks for reading. Bigger thanks for not letting this get into a name calling match. Good luck with the move, and have a great weekend.
For me, it looks like a good game. But doesn’t look like Silent Hill. Because of this it comes off as a game that was made and had the SH name slapped on it for street cred. That never works well in any case I’ve seen. Usually ends up the worst rated in a series.
Genuinely curious, why does it not look like SH? Is it because of the japanese setting? Because other than that it looks heavily focused on proper psychological chaos. I think we’ve got to give developers some form of freedom if we want to see this series advance!
IMO, hit stop in the combat. Also, the camera perspective puts too much emphasis on combat.
At its core, the peak way to play Silent Hill was to engage in combat as little as possible. This makes sense both in lore and for the player of the game:
In the game lore, protagonists in Silent Hill are “Everymen.” Just an average person. Average people do not generally have combat experience or training, and thus an average person put into a Silent Hill scenario, will more likely want to run away than engage in combat with a weapon they are not familiar with. They may be so unaccustomed to combat with a weapon they may injure themselves or waste all the bullets or break the weapon due to lack of training in combat.
For the player, combat felt bad, and generally posed more risk than reward (trade potentially losing a lot of health in a fight just to not have to walk around the enemy) as in Silent Hill, killing enemies doesn’t reward the player with anything other than having one less enemy to avoid. They don’t drop health or items.
Additionally, Silent Hill has generally focused on people with some sort of dark past, with the exception of the 1st, 3rd, and 4th game. The 3rd game’s original plot apparently did give the protagonist a dark past, but Konami felt it would have been too much and thus changed the plot significantly. Some elements of the original plot still remain, but are reworked into the new, different plot in the game currently.
SH2 remake, and in fact Homecoming and Downpour fall victim to this overemphasis on combat, and it is primarily the fault of the over the shoulder camera. The combat feels good and fun, and thus it makes the player want to do it more. This resulted in more sales because the mainstream audience seems to only like playing one kind of game. Unfortunately, it also resulted in the IP losing its identity.
The story looks fine, but calling it a Silent Hill game when it gives no indication of connecting to the town of Silent Hill is concerning. Every Silent Hill game previously connected to the actual town in some way. If f doesn’t do this, then nothing separates it from being a generic horror game with the Silent Hill name slapped on top.
I’ll try to reply to points highlighted by the both of you, to try and play devil’s advocate for a bit:
I really don’t think the combat looks like anything we’ve seen from Resident Evil. Honestly, I don’t even know if there’s gonna be a gun in the game, judging from the trailers.
The main character clearly looks like an inept at handling weapons too, like the old games. We don’t really know how much damage we take or how easy the combat is, but it’s obvious they couldn’t come out in 2025 with a combat system as stiff, clunky and annoying as the one featured in the first trilogy. Many games in the last decade have shown that you can have a combat system that feels fluid but also have it so that you may want to not fight, for one reason or another (If I recall correctly, weapons do break in the game after a certain amount of use - that’s surely a deterrent from using them).
There’s a difficulty setting at the start of the game, so I’m sure you can just crank it up to hard if you want to have a though survival horror experience.
We have no way of knowing how they’ll connect the whole situation to the town of Silent Hill, that’s true. I’m honestly not disturbed by this as I never felt the physicalness of buildings and road to be the important factor. For all we know, Silent Hill is a catalyst that connects people living through particular distressing emotions to a horrorific underworld - who says it cannot happen in another part of the globe?
.
Additionally, Silent Hill has generally focused on people with some sort of dark past, with the exception of the 1st, 3rd, and 4th game.
I… I don’t think this counts as a very strong argument if you read the sentence a couple of times. The 3rd entry is, in its actual form, beloved by many fans of the original trilogy.
I don’t know peeps, I understand the sentiment of wanting a good game but we should genuinely just wait and try out the game if we’re interested. They can’t simply make the same game over and over, because that’d be even worse. It’s like with music artists, you know? Bob Dylan was shunned by many for “going electric”, yet those albums are now considered absolute classics. I’m not trying to say Konami has the same artistic foresight of Dylan, but we should at least try to cut them some slack and hold our opinions until after the game has come out and we’ve been able to try it out :)
Respectfully, as a Silent Hill fan, I have been “cutting Konami some slack” for 20 years. And I have been getting burned for 20 years. So please excuse me for being cynical.
I didnt even mention The Short Message or Ascension because I didn’t feel like I even needed to bring either of them up, but just mentioning them now should be enough to illustrate my point in mentioning them at all.
Silent Hill f was the project I was most interested in from Konami when they announced it. I am not disinterested in the game, and I will likely still play it. However, I have a lot of major reservations because of my history with Konami. I didn’t appreciate the changes made to SH2 Remake, so while the mainstream audience at it up, I didn’t even finish the game. I will see how it goes, but the more I keep seeing about the game, I keep seeing some stuff I don’t like.
Everytime a hit lands on an enemy in the trailers, the game stops for a few frames. This better be removed or an effect that is only in the trailers. If that’s in the game and I can’t turn that off then I probably won’t keep playing it. That might seem nitpicky, but I play Silent Hill for a specific experience. I don’t play Silent Hill to get an experience I can get from Resident Evil or some other game. I am totally fine with Konami “making the same game repeatedly,” so long as story elements, levels, items, etc are different, I would be glad to have games in a series have identical gameplay between each entry. Metroid Prime 1 and 2, for example, or Half-Life and Opposing Force. Although the story, weapons, and visual assets are different, the core gameplay is identical. You are still getting the same gameplay experience in the sequel as your did in the original.
To each their own! I’m a long time fan of the original trilogy too, but I’d be very bored if they kept spinning around the same formulas. I do agree with the fact that SH2’s remake added unecessary things - but to be fair, I think the remake was just unnecessary overall, they could’ve simply spent their resources trying to reverse-engineer the original in order to bring it to modern hardware.
Have you tried to take a look at recent horror indie games? Titles such as Tormented Souls might scratch the particular itch, if Konami fails to deliver.
Silent Hill is more than just psychological chaos, most any modern horror game does that much. The Japanese setting doesn’t really help, it would make it harder to adapt to the IP, but it could have been done in a way that it wouldn’t have been an issue.
I’ll have to rewatch the trailer to give you more specific points, but it seems combat might be more prevalent than it should, veering more to the Resident Evil brand. The shifted world didn’t make much of an appearance in the trailer, but from the glimpses it seemed tame and not really all that horror-esque. It doesn’t even appear to be in or connected to the town of Silent Hill.
Being a bigger fan of the first two games than any of the rest, i see them as the standard, the fog and mist, not being able to see everything clearly so that odd shapes and shadows mess with you is also something I am missing in the new game.
It may be a great game. I just don’t see it as a SH game.
Hahaha yeah. Man it seems like the further we walk in one direction the further we walk away from another.
I mean like, we’ve got so many fresh and new experiences to make our lives easier and happier, but every step we take it feels like we forget the old ones, and instead we learn new things to make us unhappy. Why can’t we make progress without losing it, or making it more complicated for ourselves?
Why I loved Nino Kuni Wrath of the White Witch it based on Studio Gibil. Excellent game and great RPG with awesome animation. The second game had potential but they turn into a grinding game. But had an awesome story as well.
Yeah I have it for the PS3. I remember pre-ordering this game. I looked it up and you can find on Steam but they want freaking 49.99 for it. Which crazy this game has to be 10 to 12 years old.
Yes, just found it on Steam but they are asking way to much for a 12 year old game. I mean I bought it new on PS3 for 40 bucks in 2013. Why is it forsale at 49.99 on Steam?
Gang Beasts is a fun one and supports up to 8 players. Don’t use the native Linux version though. It’s pretty buggy but the Windows version works well with Proton.
Nidhogg is another fun one. It’s only two players at a time but you can do a tournament and it’s almost as fun to watch as it is to play. The sequel is good but I prefer the original for it’s simplicity.
probably has to do with “negative minority being the loudest” on the internet, but as you can see from this thread there’s a LOT whole of concern for a game nobody has tried out yet. I guess I understand where they’re coming from since Konami’s record with the series isn’t great, but I still genuinely fail to see why silent hill f isn’t perceived as a good game from the trailers we’ve seen thus far.
bin.pol.social
Aktywne