PixlBit

And it has shortcuts!  Those thinks are like, so distinct. It's not like Ultima Underworld had all that in 1992 and influenced King's Field which influenced Dark Souls.

New Doom and old Doom are very different beasts. People have to look closer at what the old games were doing. It's not just about speed and violence. I don't think people will be playing and analyzing new Doom in another 20 years like they do the original. However I don't think more of the same would have been interesting either, so I'm glad it exists in the form it does. I even enjoyed Doom 3 for what it was.

I still see a lot of mentions on forums and by game journos. Seems every other new game still gets labeled "it's like Souls" by these people.  Fucking audiences take a good thing and then beat it into the ground.

That's another thing to consider. The 15th game in series X may be someone's first but it will may have QoL advancements that the previous games didn't have, therefore it's iteration is justified. And people usually want to play the latest and greatest of whatever series or IP has been released. The fact that's it's been done before is irrelevant to them.

A new game in a genre or series almost always has a few things new, so sticking too close is not much of an issue usually. The new player can go back and get the similar-but-different experience if they want more of what they played with some different trappings.

Thanks.

By the same token, Shadow of War itself was a clone of other open world games, so their stance is hypocritical to me. And what about the people who didn't play Shadow or War, or didn't like it? Or maybe they like the MM theme more than the LotR. The game will be fresh to some people. And there enough differences between the games to make them feel different to people who have played SoW.

It's one thing to mention in the review that a game may be difficult. That's similar to parental advisaries in movie reviews. It's another to assume frustration on anyone else's part or what may be too hard for them.  There is no empirical evidence that casual players cannot or will not play hard games at all.  That's not intrinsic to the definition of casual. But I'd have to see the Bloodborne review in question and how it was worded.

Well I don't think listening to forum or Youtube comments is useful feedback for game design anyway, because of the insular mentality and general immaturity. What happened to game designer's going with "I think it would be neat/cool/fun if we did this"?  Some user feedback is useful, but it seems companies are trying too hard to hedge their bets and listen to all the chatter.Who cares if some people complain. It's hardly reasonable to assume this represents any great number without thorough polling, which will never happen.

Just the fact that people think there is a "true" Zelda points to how useless listening to this chatter is. True according to what or whom? People complain there aren't puzzles/themed dungeons in BotW, like post-Ocarina/Aunoma games. But neither did the first couple of games have them, and they established the IP.  So which is true? Some game are top down, some are third person. Which is true LoZ? I say it's whatever Nintendo thinks at any given moment. BotW has a lot in common with the first LoZ, so I guess we have our answer for now...

But isn't this true across all mediums? You can easily read through sites that focus on movies and you'll find plenty of reviewers shitting on the latest Transformers release or the latest rom-com, or whatever. Music sites are even worse. People extremely vested in a given medium tend to have a more critical eye for quality and can appreciate the nuance the separates the good from the average or bad.

This is different. The comments and review I cited aren't concerned with quality. They are griping about the fact that they are faced with another game that is similar to ones they have already played. But no one forced them to play all these similar games and the industry isn't just made for them.  Their own gluttony is at fault. The next side scrolling Mario, if there is one, will be new to people. Some of these people will be chidlren, but some will also be adults.

So why are film critics shitting on Transformers? Is it because there are several of them, or because they think they are poorly made, lowbrow films? There have been countless James Bond movies, yet Skyfall and Casino Royale were well received because of their quality.

Frankly, I don't think reviews should be tailored for an audiene, unless that audience is chidren. I've never seen any film critic worth their salt try to placate the reader or come to their level. They write their thoughts about the film, and you generally trust they will bring a mature, reasoned perspective to it. Complaining that a game is like 10 others you've played doesn't strike me as that.

We take a lot of things for granted in this hobby. But that's a topic for another post. Hint: "metroidvania" is not a useful descriptor outside of the ghetto, and Dark Souls isn't nearly as popular as people think.

SotN is what's way overrated. The upside castle is superfluous, and the leveling leads to unbalanced difficulty over the length of the game; it especially undermines boss fights. The map design isn't nearly as intricate Super Metroid's. SM never slacks in any area the way SotN does.

Yeah there is way too much emulation of childhood's games in the indie sphere, but I'd say that's also where most of the new(ish) ideas are, if not 2D. Factorio, Dwarf Fortress, The Escapists, RimWorld, Gunpoint, Invisible Inc etc. AAA is largely derivative as well, and limited in genre representation compared to the indie space. Everyone is still trying to make the next Deus Ex or RE4

My idea is everything that gets praise in this hobby is overrated. A lot of people act like games are the most important thing in the world, especially the games they love, so they can't help to be overrated. Hyperbolic reactions is what I'm getting at. Like they'd murder their parents or give up a limb for a game.