The Electric Underground - Arcade design champion and only true game reviewer

Ahem: "it sucks"

where's my patreon money
no-nope.gif

Anyway, one of my Latino buddies had to leave Marks discord cause he was to much of a chud for the LGTV mods.
(thou tbf Mark hasn't posted there since January 2024 so is it really his DC at this point?)
 
Pretentious midwitted faggot the YouTube Channel. You can tell he's a sperg.
Better a sepheroth-speeched chud than a gun-and-ball normgroid, imo.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=gYEJQ6Hj600
It's been the hot topic within the FGC lately as 2XKO hilariously collapsed.
A /v/tard said the devs basically scammed riot into funding their niche flavor of fighting game that had 0 prospect of mass-market success. If so, based: Fuck Riot.
 
A /v/tard said the devs basically scammed riot into funding their niche flavor of fighting game that had 0 prospect of mass-market success. If so, based: Fuck Riot.
I am not completely up-to-date on the history of 2XKO, but it took them years if not over a decade to get this shit out of the door. Not to mention that it changed to a tag team fighter somewhere mid-development. Within the sphere of fighting games you are either MK or SF6 in terms of massive success, or you are a discord fighter. As for mass market success that's of course always hard to gauge even more so with fighting games, but I think they had a chance to carve out a decent sizable niche for themselves. But that window of opportunity was during LoL's heyday somewhere in the last decade.
 
His pragmata review was really good. Even the best Modern games have a thin veneer of competency but it all falls apart when the game design is tested with any rigor.

He has some great mantras "difficulty clarifies game design" is a great one and very true. At the highest level, you discover how mechanics, level and enemy design interact with each other holistically... In shitty games, you find that they don't.

I think every decent gamer should get really good at at least one genre or even one game so they have a better grasp on this.
 
He has some great mantras "difficulty clarifies game design" is a great one and very true. At the highest level, you discover how mechanics, level and enemy design interact with each other holistically... In shitty games, you find that they don't.
I don't always agree on everything he critiques, and sometimes I think is a bit too pedantic but in general he has a good grasp on what works and what doesn't.
And considering how almost all games suck ass on the "highest" difficulty he is right about that. Modern game devs can't design and balance for shit. And general just put shit into their games without a coherent idea behind it.
I think every decent gamer should get really good at at least one genre or even one game so they have a better grasp on this.
Yes that is quite the important observation. That's why especially game reviewers suck ass since they lack a deep understanding of genres, mechanics and design decisions among other things. No wonder why the modern kitchen sink, wide as an ocean and deep as a puddle approach to game design has become so ingrained with games, especially when it comes to AAA.
 
And considering how almost all games suck ass on the "highest" difficulty he is right about that. Modern game devs can't design and balance for shit. And general just put shit into their games without a coherent idea behind it.
I know he knows, but every modern singleplayer game is not made for gamers, they're made the common mass market. The hyper competitive gamer today sticks to online multiplayer games. Modern single player games are made with the assumption, you play it once, and never touch it again. They will never hide cool shit behind hard mode, like new bosses, weapons and enemies like they did in the 2000's and 90's. Or even balance the game with the assumption you might go though it again with the knowledge you have from a previous run.

You have to understand the gamer they have in mind with stuff like pragmata is a late 20's something man who wants to wind down for a few hours and not think to much. Long cinematics, lengthy forced tutorials and other hand-holdy mechanics, only make sense if they never intend for you to replay the game.
 
Yes that is quite the important observation. That's why especially game reviewers suck ass since they lack a deep understanding of genres, mechanics and design decisions among other things. No wonder why the modern kitchen sink, wide as an ocean and deep as a puddle approach to game design has become so ingrained with games, especially when it comes to AAA.
Yeah, it's easy to think you are good just because you are finding success and using at least most of the mechanics, but like Chess against a toddler, even if you are winning you might not actually be playing right.

My only frame of reference is street fighter, mainly third strike and super turbo, so I can tell even in a game like SF6 where I'm "Master" that I don't actually know what I'm doing. There is a lot of nuance to proper play and you can tell when Your opponent doesn't know how to play either, even if they can do their special moves and combos and a layman who button mashes might think they are good.

it's also dreadfully apparent that these games are boring as hell at a casual level and much more fun when both players know what they are doing.

Casuals don't even realize the fun they are missing out on. Mastering a game that's actually good is the best experience you can have with the medium. Once you get that high nothing compares.

Itagaki (PBUH) also made reference to "lock and key design" as chopping vegetables. Where developers give you an ability that that solves the roadblock completely without anything dynamic happening gameplay wise. Nintendo does this a lot. You just recall the power up to solve the "puzzle" or beat the enemy. When things don't have a simple solution, you get DSP type gamers crying "it doesn't work like it's supposed to"
 
I know he knows, but every modern singleplayer game is not made for gamers, they're made the common mass market.
Modern single player games are made with the assumption, you play it once, and never touch it again.
True, which is quite unfortunate because even a lot of AAA can have some nice ideas or mechanics that could make for an interesting game, but it's either too diluted so it doesn't stop the average gamer from playing it, or it never goes further than a proof of concept.
You have to understand the gamer they have in mind with stuff like pragmata is a late 20's something man who wants to wind down for a few hours and not think to much. Long cinematics, lengthy forced tutorials and other hand-holdy mechanics, only make sense if they never intend for you to replay the game.
I finished Pragmata and there is a lot to like in that game. It is slightly above the average AAA game but at the same time it falls into the same problems as a lot of other games i.e. its mechanics and balance are not tuned for higher difficulties (or even the normal one) and the game develops a bad meta that invalidates a lot of options.

Yeah, it's easy to think you are good just because you are finding success and using at least most of the mechanics, but like Chess against a toddler, even if you are winning you might not actually be playing right. My only frame of reference is street fighter, mainly third strike and super turbo, so I can tell even in a game like SF6 where I'm "Master" that I don't actually know what I'm doing. There is a lot of nuance to proper play and you can tell when Your opponent doesn't know how to play either, even if they can do their special moves and combos and a layman who button mashes might think they are good.
Which is really strange since fighting games are mechanical more robust and demanding than most other genres. But I suppose the endless pursuit trying to get the normies into SF was also what inadvertently led to the game become more random, boring and homogenized. And with SF6 you get handicaps to push players into Master rank which than lost any meaning because people still don't know what to do once they get there.

it's also dreadfully apparent that these games are boring as hell at a casual level and much more fun when both players know what they are doing.
That is certainly true to some extent but especially with SF6 I think the game remains pretty rigid and on rails due to the system mechanics. Most matches either played or watched become only really existing once things start to diverge heavily from the usual gameplay. Even if people know what they are doing.

Casuals don't even realize the fun they are missing out on. Mastering a game that's actually good is the best experience you can have with the medium. Once you get that high nothing compares.
Yes that is quite unfortunate, but it seems that modern developers don't demand from their players to develop any skills and players also are not interested to learn anything and take pride in their accomplishment. Putting in any effort is no longer desirable. And I wouldn't be surprised if that kind of mentality from people is a clear reflection how they also behave when engaging with work or hobbies.
 
Where developers give you an ability that that solves the roadblock completely without anything dynamic happening gameplay wise. Nintendo does this a lot. You just recall the power up to solve the "puzzle" or beat the enemy. When things don't have a simple solution, you get DSP type gamers crying "it doesn't work like it's supposed to"
This is why Mega Man boss weaknesses are absolute AIDS but it's what people want I guess
 
This is why Mega Man boss weaknesses are absolute AIDS but it's what people want I guess
The idea here was that there is supposed to be some kind of trade off where you use the boss weapons in the stage itself, so saving them for the boss makes the stage harder ... but the stages rarely incentivized this, and then they jumped the shark with etanks and such.

Megaman is also a series intended primarily for children under 12, I think we've completely lost it when it comes to suitable challenge (purely as a way to keep people engaged and stimulated) for an adult, or even a teenager.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo