The new game awards just made me realise something, or rather, bring on the forefront something I always noticed but never talked about much.
All these people are popular and good looking. I mentally compared this to like,late 90's/early 2000's E3 and I see that most of the hosts are average looking guys, some even slightly unattractive. Then it hit me, these people are...us. They are the guys that spent all nighters playing Deathmatch with their buddies and coding games in their spare time. These are the guys that have nerd shit on their walls, that repulse normie women, that dont get out as much, that are looked down upon by others, that have passion.
E3 was a convention your never told anyone you went because you knew they would judge you for going to a place all about gaming. It was your little secret many times because you knew they would never understand, they didnt have it in them to do so.
Then it happened. There was a change, not on their side but on your passion hobby. It slowly became better looking, more executives involved, more adaptation to a "wider demographic". It truly became more about the pretty colours and messages than the experience itself. Then normies began to like video games but they havent changed, they still look down on you, but now for different reasons. They now look down on you because you know things have been changed to suit them, you know that they never liked this hobby to begin with, why the fuck are they pretending they do now? You can see beyond the corporate lies and see it all for what it is, this is why they still look down on you, because now you are onto them, you remember how things were and what they took from you so its suitable for them.
The gaming genre has been officially "Hollywood-fied" so now the game awards are literally oscars, full of arrogant self rightious pricks smelling each other's farts that wish to remind you that they now own your hobby, its not for you anymore, but "us all" (aka, not you). Why you think that games resemble movies more and movie? Because its represents the influence of Hollywood elites within this industry. Because its easier to control movies than games. Because games have basically become a stepping stone for pretentious fucks to climb the hierarchy.
Dont be mistaken, these people hate you. And by God they want to let you know
Try telling that to the people who think Arkham Origins is "underrated"
It is. It might be more of the same from City but it is an entertaining mostly stand alone story with the ocassional conections to the rest of the series (like Bane becoming big and deformed like he is in Asylum onward).
and he's the next Kevin Conroy (ha)
He is not. The sad fact of the matter is that Kevin just cant be replaced because his voice just fit the character almost too well for its own good, to the point now anyone that replaces him wont be able to reach the same level of vocal perfection.
They didn't have Rocksteady, Conroy, and Hamill do it because they were making Arkham Knight at the time.
I have heard your criticism of the combat before, can you actually show any visual comparisons of what you mean?
I've seen tons of people say the combat is worse and tons of people say the combat feels the same.
I have a theory on why that is.
Burn out.
I have seen a lot of people playing Origins usually after City and trust me, I love City but it is quite the draining game, especially its climax requiring a lot of near pitch perfect dodge leaps with Clayface.
They go from City straight to Origins is actually not a good move in my opinion, as it feels like you are straight from zero again with not that new things to keep your attention, especially early on. Origins is also a smaller story compared to City and that can also make it a bit harder to get into it if you are playing one after the other.
So I always recommend Origins to be played after an intermission to play something and then get back to it.
If a game requires mods to function or be fun, then it failed and should condemned.
Does Vampire The Masquerade Bloodlines count or is an exception? Because it is a gray situation where the game didnt come out complete but its devs kept releasing downloadable "patches" (tho it kind of worked like mods) to make the game closer to what it was suppose to be and the results are great.
I can still enjoy vanilla F3 and NV for what they are. I think Starfield is the first game where the devs seems to be really counting on the modding scene making it more fun (tho at the same time these dummies make it harder for people to mod, because...reasons?).
You can actually animation cancel it by doing a batclaw quickfire and you'll have full control over your character, while you would have been stuck in the knockout animation. The Arkham games actually have quite a few little weird mechanics in the game that they just don't tell people. Like you're not suppose to be able to do an aerial attack on some of the larger thugs as they'll catch you and throw you down. However you can stun a normal thug, kick off them to start the aerial attack, and then redirect yourself so you hit the large thug instead. There's even a special attack animation that plays. Or how in City, if you use the REC gun on Grundy, it heals him because he's powered by electricity in that game.
Its smaller details that go a long way, you may not even notice it at first but your mind did without you knowing.
I think you can also do a running slide into them and they'll break open automatically.
AND if there are thugs right outside of it, that instantly knocks them out, or at least leaves them dizzy on the ground, giving you time for a ground takedown or to hide away from view before they get up.
The Arkham series legit rewards experimentation and unorthodox methods...almost like, you know, Batman
