There was a 2010 2D platformer released as Sonic 4 which was meant to be the spiritual successor.
I’d say the real spiritual successor on Genesis/Megadrive was Sonic & Knuckles, which came out after Sonic 3 and for all intents and purposes may as well have been called Sonic 4. But they had to push the Knuckles aspect because the cartridge had a passthrough that would accept another Genesis cartridge and allow you to play e.g. Sonic 2 with the Knuckles sprite, iirc.
No no no…Sonic and Knuckles was just Sonic 3, the other half of the cartridge that they sold you a second time, somehow.
They had 1 game, Sonic 3, and somehow split it in 2, and sold it twice. I mean, I guess it was kind of cool playing with Knuckles if you also owned Sonic 2, but it would have been nice if they’d have made it compatible with Sonic 1 somehow.
And would it have killed them to let you play as Tails in Sonic 3? Or use the dual screen multiplayer mode?
I feel like Sonic 3 was so great, but also somehow also a huge ripoff. I only got Sonic & Knuckles. I never had Sonic 3. And I tried showing my dad the whole interlocking cartridges thing. I said "See, if I had Sonic 3, I could insert it here, and play that game as Knuckles. And he asked “Can’t you play as Knuckles in this one?” And I said “Well…yes…” and he said “Great. Problem solved! Not like you won’t be playing with your knuckles soon enough as it is!”
Which I’m just now getting was a masturbation joke. My dad made a masturbation joke to me when I was 11…gaaahhhhh…forever unclean! forever unclean!!!
Well joke’s on him! I was too dumb to know that masturbation was a thing until I was 19! First time I cum, it was inside a girl…which I felt really bad about, because I felt like I was about to start peeing inside her…and I wanted to stop…but sex…and then it just happened. And I was like :O and she was like :D and somehow, she didn’t get pregnant. Looking back on that story, maybe I should get my sperm count tested. I’ve NEVER gotten a girl pregnant, as many times as I’ve been not using a condom. I’m sure some of those girls were just gold diggers too. Then when they didn’t get pregnant, they must have been like “WHAT THE FUUUUCK???”
Actually, knowing my dad…is it possible for a father to secretly give his infant son a vasectamy when he’s just 1 month old? I wouldn’t put it past him…
No no no…Sonic and Knuckles was just Sonic 3, the other half of the cartridge that they sold you a second time, somehow.
It’s not though? Sonic & Knuckles has unique stages and story vs. Sonic 3. Unless you mean they were designed as one game and split at the end before release; that I don’t know.
Aggression should be part of a game, but shouldn’t be the only way to play it. Obviously, when a game is optimized, it may be the best way to play (Monster Hunter and HAME speedruns come to mind), but a lot of great games try to design so that different archetypes can coexist and play off one another.
Street Fighter 6 encourages aggression. The Drive Meter system makes it so that turtling and blocking forever will end with you in blowout, taking chip damage and having worse frame disadvantage, as well as removing your ability to use Drive moves and opening you up for stuns. However, also hidden within the Drive System are some of the tools to deter mindless aggression. Drive Impacts are big moves with armor that lead into a full combo, so if you can read a braindead attack sequence, you can Drive Impact to absorb a hit, smack them, and then combo them for 35% of their life total. There are also parries, which can refill your drive meter.
Magic: The Gathering has tried to balance the various archetypes (Aggro, Midrange, Control, and Combo) so that every format should have at least 1 competitively viable deck in each meta archetype. Typically, Aggro will be too fast for a Control deck to stabilize and kill them before they can get their engine set up. But Midrange will trade just efficiently enough (with good 2-for-1 removal or creatures) to stop the aggression, and then start plopping out creatures that Aggro will have difficulty overcoming. And Combo often has nothing to fear from Aggro, since Aggro oftentimes can’t interact with the game-winning combo pieces. And because of this system, Aggro decks have to have sideboard plans ready for whatever meta they expect at an event or tournament. Removal or protection to get over or under Midrange, and faster speed or other types of interaction to take down or disrupt Combo. Magic’s systems (Mana/lands, instant speed removal, and even the variance that comes from being a card game) don’t punish aggro directly, but they make sure that there are usually answers out there.
Dark Souls, and other from soft souls likes (except Sekiro and Bloodborne).
You are encouraged to play cautiously and intently, otherwise you'll get slapped by concealed enemies, mobs with unexpected movesets, and being over aggressive and "greedy" during boss fights will end many an attempt. I love these games for that.
Competitive Pokémon tends to go back and forth between times of “stall” (turtling) and hyper-offense (aggression) dominating the metagame, depending on which strategies and team builds players will find. Whenever one becomes dominant, fans of the other will constantly hound tournament runners to change tiering or ban certain pokemon to change it.
As for a “fun” game to go hyper-aggressive with zero HP, max damage, I’ve seen some YouTubers attempt “Danger Mario” runs in the first two Paper Mario games, maximizing FP and BP and never taking HP when leveling, keeping Mario in the “danger” zone where lots of evasion or damage badges will stay activated. They then rely on those badges, items and partner abilities to avoid taking damage.
EA’s been manipulating the review scores, and can still only muster their current metacritic rating. I’m interested to see what the audience scores look like later this week.
Dead by Daylight has an issue with killers that keep their focus on one of the four survivors, ignoring the core objectives and other players. Worse, it often works well. There are many videos out there of experienced teams that find karmic counters for this practice, helping the victim escape the killer to some completely unknown location on the map, and often leaving the killer late-game with little to work with.
Texas Chainsaw Massacre (a 4v3 horror game), on the other hand, developed some issues where the prevailing strategies for the victims involve stacking up abilities that let them ignore attacks so there’s no need to hide or move slowly. It ends up taking long enough for the family members to even strike them down that some will brute-force objectives right in the family’s face. Part of the game’s issues is, the maps are developed to be relatively tight, so there’s fewer places for family to check, but it also made stealth strategies relatively ineffective.
An old favorite of mine for countering “Rush Meta” is in Team Fortress 2. For single players hoping to run past players to objectives, the Engineer’s sentry locks on to them pretty quickly, and no matter how fast they’re moving, it spells death within a certain bubble. Being automated, it also means no one has to camp for this to stay around. The sentries still die to inexperienced players that are making a unified push.
TF2’s other “rush punisher” is the Heavy - a class with a low skill cap, but a high health pool. He deals ludicrous damage up close, but can’t move quickly. So, he’s most lethal to people that are running at/past him instead of attacking from a distance. He says it right in his intro - he can’t outsmart people. He’s just a strong presence in a push for anyone that doesn’t have a plan to slow themselves down in order to deal the ton of damage needed to kill him. For a long time, in matches where the enemy team stuck to having 3 pyros rushing the frontline, my sole strategy was to pile up on Heavy, forcing the enemy team to consider ranged attackers like Demoman and Sniper, slowing the game down as a result.
You are so spot on with Dead by Daylight. If the survivor chosen to get “rushed down” has a couple specific things in their build or their team can play around it, it becames a huge uphill battle for the killer to get anyone else, but in public games often the teams aren’t coordinated enough, or the survivor chosen isn’t skilled enough to stall it out
I haven’t played Overwatch for a while but for a time there was a notorious meta called GOATS (3 tanks, 3 supports). It was an insanely aggressive meta that focused on rushing straight into the enemy team, tanking them, and killing them before they can react. The only way you can counter it is by also running the same team comp and hoping to kill them faster.
It ruined ranked games for a few months and the devs apparently had no idea how to fix it without nerfing tanks or supports hard - which would make playing them feel terrible. That’s why OW added a role queue and enforced 2 damage, 2 tank, 2 support teams.
That said, I think aggressive metas are way better than turtling ones. Nobody wants to idle around and take pot shots until someone gets bored.
To your first bullet point, your own example of StarCraft. Rush strategies are usually so all-in that they win or lose in a couple of minutes. If they’re successfully defended, the defender now has such an advantage that the rusher can’t come back from it.
I actually don’t know of a game that’s ruined by an “aggression meta”. I don’t think I agree that it’s a problem. Neither rushing nor turtling is incentivized in StarCraft. The push and pull that the designers wanted from a given match is the optimal way to play, and you’ll find more success chasing that than either turtling or rushing.
I’m heavily invested in the fighting game scene, and the genre’s been getting more and more “aggression mechanics” for a long time now; some might call them “neutral skips”, skipping the part of the game where the two players try to approach each other. There’s a clear reason for why they do this: it’s way more fun to watch. Street Fighter V often devolved into two players left on their last pixel of health, since you can’t kill with chip damage (for the most part), so it was a boring situation of both players fishing for a last hit as the clock ticks down. Now, whether it’s Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, or Guilty Gear, you have a meter that you use on offense and defense. Being offensive rewards you with more and allows you to be more offensive, and being defensive will drain it. You can still have that moment from SFV that was supposed to be tense, but now it’s actually tense, because while that player is defending, the resource that prevents a checkmate situation is draining down, and when it’s empty, it’s basically game over.
Fighting games are a genre where it makes sense to push aggression meta. At times, people have wished that the genre allowed for more defensive counterattacking, but it’s not hard to predict how that would look in effect; two players both staring each other down waiting for the other to make a punishable move.
Basically, fighting games don’t have other mechanics outside of direct combat interactions that allow for fun decision-making. There’s fringe stuff like when someone has power-ups that don’t require landing hits (eg, Phoenix Wright in Ultimate Marvel vs Capcom 3) but they don’t involve much decision-making.
I think the only time rush is an issue in games like Starcraft, thus making it an example, is at the low level of play where people don’t know how to react. So, once players get experience in the mechanics, it’s basically fixing itself. Other games can sometimes have that issue at all levels of play though.
There are tons of decisions to make at any given time in a fighting game outside of trying to be on offense. That’s why it’s more of a recent trend to add mechanics to incentivize aggression. And yes, the fact that rushes tend to only terrorize lower levels of play is why it’s more of a gimmick than a feature.
I think most of us are just tired of obvious paid for reviews with built in talking points like that. I’d like to be able to remotely trust anyone without watching a one hour unedited let’s play video but that just means you’ll accidentally buy Andromeda. I hope Veilguard is playable but signs are not good when bioware is “returning to form” x100
EDIT 2 What the fuck is happening with the Qunari. Origins, 2, Inquisition, and finally Veilguard. This is just sad. In the first 3 games. They were cool, but now they look like shit cosplay.
It’s weird how all of them are saying the same thing.
“Return to form” is just one of those reviewer-isms like “mixed bag” and “fans of the genre”. You’ve probably seen the words “return to form” in dozens of trailers over the years that put the review quotes in their sizzle reels.
The qunari design is the weirdest thing to me. They Bioware spent so much effort solidifying who the Qunari are in 2 and had a great design to reflect that. Then in 3 I feel like they maintained and perhaps even improved the design, but kinda watered down the characterization of the culture. Perhaps I’m misremembering and the group of Qunari present in 2 are a more extreme sect than they are representative of the people as a whole. Now in Veilguard they seem to have really softened everything about the race. I’m just confused about the design direction which is disappointing because I really enjoy the qunari of DA2.
Initial reviews seem remarkably positive given what we saw in the first gameplay reveal a few months ago. My impression at the time was that about half the voice actors sounded like they hadn’t been given enough context about the scenario and some of the cutscenes had questionable direction, which were bad signs for a curated ten minute slice. I still think it’s ultimately not for me—I don’t really want action combat in my Dragon Age—but I’m glad people are enjoying it.
No idea why there are so many people who want this game to fail. Bioware has realistically made two bad games, Andromeda and Anthem, and for me Andromeda has the best gameplay in the entire series, not necessarily the best story and anthem is just not great. It’s crazy the amount of bioware hate that exists that’s completely unwarranted.
I feel like the story has good ideas but ultimately fails, personally. I like the idea of struggling against inevitable tragedy, but when the cause of such tragedy was against always immediately in arms reach of you and caused by a single person it falls flat.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Age_II lots of good information in the wiki page, of which none of your claims are accurate except for maybe the polarizing views on reused assets but that’s literally by design, not crunch. It sold more than origins and sold over a million copies in two weeks, that’s pretty damn good. Nice rage baiting though.
Wow knowing the asset reuse was by design makes me feel way less charitable towards DA2. (I don’t know if I’d go as far as the other commenter and say it’s “a bad game,” but I didn’t like it.)
It depends on how you frame it. I don’t see it as “hate” as I don’t hate Bioware, but objectively speaking, the work speaks for itself. Hyperbole such as disaster, catastrophe, etc are embellishments, but to say the game isn’t bad or just so-so isn’t a scathing criticism.
Anthem was treated the way it was due to ME3 and the narrative choices, for better or worse. People wanted to tell off Casey Hudson, and the game suffered unfairly. Granted it wasn’t a good game, it wasn’t as terrible as it was made out to be either.
Now on Andromeda, however, it was fairly criticized. The gameplay was fun and engaging, but the narrative and storytelling were given their fair treatment. That stuff was just bad, and the developer responses didn’t help either. The pathetic rants amounted to “I put mah heart and souuuulll into it”, and just because people worked really hard on something, doesn’t mean it was a good thing. People worked really hard in the sewers of London to get rid of fatbergs, but in the end all they achieved was moving shit around, and that’s more dignified than the trash we got in Andromeda’s writing and character animations.
Looking at the current marketing situation and the “Bioware hate” as you refer to it, I really think there’s more EA hate at this point. EA is blatantly manipulating the review scores by means of review embargos and selectively cherry picking only favorable review outlets, and in some cases we are even spotting reused catchphrases that indicate signs of coaching by EA to say positive things about the game. They do this in light of the consumer sentiment about preorders “Not touching this or preordering, I want reviews first” is a common sentiment amongst their video comments telling their marketing engagement experts to use dirty tricks like review manipulation.
I’d honestly love for Veilguard to be fantastic, but the layoffs and staff turnover tell me they didn’t value their developers, didn’t value the product, and don’t value the art or anything really beyond making some flashy flim-flam with marketable gimmicks. The reviews I’ve read mention that the characters in the game must definitely know what Tiktok is, due to the cringy dialogue, and that’s a review that gave it a favorable score.
Just wait until the objective reviews hit and this game is widely panned. That will draw the line between “hate” and “oh, this is actually shitty”, and make things especially clear.
There have been more positive reviews so far than negative, and not a single post has shown any proof that EA is manipulating reviews and cherry picking. The only thing we’ve seen is one guy at fextralife throwing out conspiracy theories about how EA hates him, another guy who’s apparently a racist and sexist asshat, and that’s pretty much it. Mortismal has even stated he wasn’t paid off or anything by EA and would be fined and his account deleted if he was and didn’t disclose that fact, which he didn’t.
Bioware has made two bad games, Andromeda and Anthem, two. One is objectively not that bad, the other is a game in a genre they’ve never dipped their toes into, and the biggest issue is that those two releases were back to back, so that apparently means they’ve gone to shit now and everything else they’ve created means nothing. It’s really sad how petty and ridiculous some people are over bioware. As for the EA hate that’s been around forever, but God forbid someone say something positive about a bioware game.
Do you have proof that EA is forcing reviewers to use catchphrases as you’ve said? I get it, we all have our hate boners, we all have our pet peeves, but damn son…the conspiracy theories and review embargo nonsense is just stupid at this point. Like you said let’s just wait for the objective reviews but how about we simply don’t write the game off because bioware apparently murdered our puppies.
This sure seems to indicate coaching on catchphrases. As for conspiracy theories, this isn’t a conspiracy, it’s pretty obvious. IGN, Gamespot, Kotaku, and Polygon have a long history of rating games higher based on their budget and publisher influence. Standard review outlets are inconsistent, and since 2010 have been the butt of many jokes. This seven year old video from Dunkey albeit, satire, rather well breaks down the inconsistency between review outlet staff even highlighting their own subjective contradictions from individual reviewers (look at the bit about the Sonic game in this one).
When you look at the first wave of reviews given by those issued pre-release review copies, the trend speaks for itself.
You know, I was honestly going to give you some credit for trying, but then you edited your post and decided to turn the conversation political. Your entire argument has lost all credibility, these are video games, please try not to take them so seriously, have a nice day.
Lol, how is that political? It’s a “water makes wet” kind of thing. I’m sorry you have such fragile feelings about Bioware and don’t like the narrative. If it’s any consolation, it’s not even the same people who made the prior games. Whether the game’s a massive success or financial failure, EA’s just going to fire them all anyway. That’s cool though, we’ll see how it looks on the Steam reviews this weekend. If past experience is any indicator, whenever a publisher resorts to funny business, it’s because they have to. Nobody was needed in the defense of BG, MDK2, BG2, NWN, Kotor, Jade Empire, ME, ME2, DA:O, DA2, SW:TOR, DA:I, etc.
I don’t even really care about the studio anymore to be honest, after the layoffs and turnover, we have no idea whether this crew delivered or not, and judging from the review oddities, it paints a bleak picture. Let them sink or swim based on what EA allowed them to do, then through no true fault of their own, face a studio closure because of the obtuse fuckwads in EA corporate. Either way, the future sucks for the gaming studio called Bioware, in name only.
bin.pol.social
Gorące