วีดีโอ

42:28 Wait, wasn't ganondorf mentioned wayyyy before the last moment in twilight princess? Unless you mean like physically introduced rather than just mentioned. Ik this is a 10 month old video but just asking and fact checking.

I feel like you need to annunciate more, sometimes you just mumble like 8 words together and it’s hard to understand you. I’m not trying to be a dick I just think slow down a bit.

9:52 wait how is he controversial did i miss something?

My favourite thing about Solidus is that he succeeded. He will always be remembered by the only person that he was close to - his son. History may forget him, the public may forget him, but Raiden never will. He may not remember him for the best things, simply because Solidus barely did anything good to Raiden, but he will remember him. I like how Rising shows that in several ways: Raiden's slow acceptance of the Ripper persona that mind you SOLIDUS teached him, Raiden's flashbacks when George mentions his name(just look at his face in that sewer scene, he IS having some flashbacks), Armstrong being somewhat remiscent of Solidus, and the most obvious and somehow overlooked callback to George Sears - Jack's design in that game. His cybernetic body in that game is DEFINITELY inspired by Solidus' exosuit - the colors, missing eye, the build is somewhat similar. He just lacks the tentacles, and then it'll be basically one to one recreation of Solidus. Also I doubt he actually killed Jack's parents, I hope he just said that to fuel Raiden's rage and make him more likely to win the battle. It was either Raiden kills Solidus and the Patriots win, or Solidus kills his only memetic heritage and finds out that all the Patriots are long dead, deeming his plan pointless. He wanted Raiden to win, but he wanted him to be strong enough to finish what he started. If he would kill Solidus, then he would be strong enough to take down the Patriots. Probably. I don't know what exactly was going on in his head. Also, Huey doesn't deserve to be put on this list. The only thing that he deserves is a personal cauldron in hell where he will be boiled for eternity.

based

putting fatman ahead of the patriots is really something

Honestly based. Rivals 1 is the better game due to its gameplay. I love the movement and focus on aggression. I fail to see a future for Rivals 2 when it is making the same mistake as Icons.

But we should play it and we shouldn’t play YOU!

sounds like the game isnt for you in some ways which is a little like walking into a clothing store that isnt your style and saying you dont like anything there. The main point I felt was valid was the early access thing. This game could benefit from that banner still. The other points, such as it not being a good enough party game, while valid, miss the mark a little bit. This is not intended to be a party game. I think there are better ways to frame your opinion and thats the main reason the first video rubbed people the wrong way. I think that if you stated what you were looking for in the new game and what it lacked people woulkd have understood your position better and it would have served the people who had similar interest to you better. You instead came off as cynical and close minded when discussing some of your points. The way you approached the way video games are now released was a good way to frame things. You acknowledge there are positives for the developer and that it just doesnt suit your taste to have microtransactions and earlier rather than later in dev cycle release. You could consider the size of the team and cost of the game when you make this crticism though. Its valid to say this game is early access like I said. They got a little ahead of themselves and I think the Kickstarter campaign demanded they release it in this way. Not the best outcome but at least they are actively fixing the bugs. They arent slow about it. The bugs dont break the game either. They do break the menus at times though. I find those bugs mildly frustrating. Anyway. I appreciate the conversation around the topic and you did take criticism to heart which is nice to see.

Game isn’t unfinished and I don’t see a world where $23.99 for this game is expensive

2:19 that's not how people use the word slander anymore dw

"You should write for IGN" is hilarious. I didn't leave a comment on your last video, but you did address the only thing I didn't like about it. Rivals 2 isn't a bad game. Everything else I agree with. Rivals 1 is a more complete and better game and until Hodan is in 2, it's always going to be the better game. Enjoy your break.

Trash take and trash chanel

I understand not liking the game but going out of your way to make a video about it telling people to stop playing it while having only 2 hours in is crazy As much as people dont like to say it, this is a fighting game and one of the most fun things you can do in such a game is getting better at it How tf do you think you are in a place to judge it when you barely even gave it a chance

Tbh while the store page on steam does mention that stuff will be added in the future, the game isn't exactly advertized as early access at all when it still kinda basically is. So the complaints in the video are pretty understandable from the viewpoint of someone who would just see the game/get recommended it and buys it without looking stuff up. It would be pretty disappointing to find how little content there is compared to the first game currently. More dedicated fans of course know all the future plans and dev intentions and are looking at the game from the viewpoint of "it'll keep getting better over time". But a more casual player who just buys the game wont find as much use out of the game especially in its current state. And microtransactions are ALWAYS a red flag, and you should always see them as such these days even if in this case it's not as bad as it might seem at first. It's just a good practice to be wary with how lots of games are these days.

Yes, extremely, now apologize, play it, make videos enjoying it and move on.

If you don't understand competitive platform fighting games then just say that 🥱

Anyone who says you should just wait for more content because it's made by indie devs ticks me off. Why does it matter that it is indie devs? If they are going to full release a "full" game at a price point, then complaining about a lack of content is completely valid, and the team who made it has no impact on that. If it's a public/private beta or early access, I understand the argument, but when it's a full release I fail to see why it matters? They are charging money for a full product, and the full product doesn't meet your standards-it doesn't really get more complex than that.

LDS mission + playing rivals 1 in Middle School. Oof

you'll like it more when you play it more hahahaha. Hour 5 IS NOTHING!!!! You will like it more and if you don't it's because ur a casual

roa 2 is the best plat fighter ever.

Dude youre so bad at this game you dont even get an opinion, let alone a video.

Calling this game unfinished is disingenuous, especially in the context of comparing it to Rivals 1. This game has more characters and content than the first game did at launch, on top of doing so with much higher graphical fidelity and development resources needed to make that content. Every critique you have made of a lack of content in this game applies even more so to its predecessor.

Thanks for making a follow up, when I watched the first video I felt it more of a strict critique of 2 than a praising of 1 (largely because of the title) best of luck going forward, and to take the time off you need

4:30 I think fighting games in general become more fun as you play them because you gradually feel more in control with characters and as you improve you can implement more of the complex things the game has to offer. You can really appreciate the mind games that are at play on fighting games when you get to a certain level.

Good on you for releasing a follow up and realizing your mistakes but standing firm on some previous points. Nonetheless I have a gripe with your comment at 5:13. About it being an unfinished game. I think we need to acknowledge that developers of indie games definitely get some leeway when putting out "unfinished" games. But unfinished is has some negative connotations. What's frustrating with most unfinished games are triple AAA studios putting out a glitchy mess because their scope is just ridiculously high, and not all those features work. Despite how big of a studio they have, they put the game out. Dooming many beloved franchises because first impressions are everything in media. What Rivals 2 did is they didn't put out a game that feels bad to play. They ran a beta that WAS a beta and ironed out a lot of problems before release. Having a road map for those updates does not deserve giving a game the title of "unfinished" with the negative stigma that comes with it. Their latest update didn't need to address a list of detrimental bugs because they figured them out before they released. The game has opened to a wider audience (including me, I didn't like rivals 1) and now we're all super excited and proud to have something fresh snd new. Even their unfinished modes like the replay feature did function, and worked very well. I'm super excited that this game scratched that smash itch for me, so many games try and just fail. And I can't wait for more to come.

I play rivals 2 but I personally like 1 a lot more

I think what you're missing about the "game just came out" argument is that... Rivals 1 was the same way when it launched. Yeah it came out in early access, but by the time it left early access it still had less content than Rivals 2 on launch. And the balance was a lot worse than Rivals 2 on launch. And you used to have to pay for DLC characters too, before the definitive edition. They literally couldn't afford to add more characters at first without making you pay for them. It was only after years of the same kinds of updates Rivals 2 is planning that we got the all-in-one, every character included, workshop compatible game you see today. Which kinda leads into the other thing. It would be nice if Rivals 2 could have launched with the years of free updates they're planning on adding, but as an independent game studio trying to offer a game in a genre with pretty high development costs, they would have ran out of money long before they ever could, even with the kickstarter funds. Back in my day games used to release feature complete, but back in my day games were mostly developed by huge companies and updating them after launch was literally impossible anyways. I really don't like in-game shops either, but if it goes directly to helping an indie dev keep working on a game I like instead of a huge corporation that does not need the money at all, then it's kind of a necessary evil to keep the game alive. It's just an unfortunate fact that development is expensive. And I dunno your last video acknowledged the fact that a lot of Rivals 1's content was added over time which is kind of at odds with how you present the concept here. I'm sorry this comment is gonna be so long but I do also want to go in depth on some of the "misinformation" from the first video since you said you didn't get good examples. -Rivals of Aether 2 gives every character 3 new special moves they can use from ledge, on wakeup, and as a pummel, something smash bros doesn't even have. These were specifically added to build and balance around the new smash bros like mechanics in a thoughtful way, which in the first video you claimed were the only things added and probably poorly thought out. These are also a lot more tangible than minor patch note physics differences cause tbh I don't notice that stuff either. -Calling it the battle pass and not even mentioning that it's free just seemed like it was intentionally trying to make the game look worse. -Not technically misinfo since you said you didn't know but I do think it was a little silly that you didn't like... Look up if it was going to get support? Especially since most things you complained about being absent were known to be planned pretty publically. -This one might just be smash bros setting an unreasonable standard but complaining about the sequel having less characters than the final updated version of the last game... Yeah that's most fighting game sequels? That's always kind of been most fighting game sequels? You typically don't get away with having a bigger roster on launch than the last game unless you're in the same engine reusing the same assets, and in that case they didn't even call those sequels half the time. Y'know maybe I did a poor job at making this section about misinformation but hey it was a short video not a lot to cover lol. I guess all this rambling is to say, and I'm trying not to be mean. But the original video just comes across as kind of silly for complaining about the game launching in a similar state to the first game on launch and not having all of the updates it'll get later like the first game did. The first video really just sounds like "In 4 years or so I will like Rivals of Aether 2" while giving the first game a pass for also taking like 4 years to get there.

yes

Yeah, it's certainly not a casual game at the moment. I don't mind so much, because Rivals of Aether 2 isn't so much a sequel to me, as it is a whole new game in the series. It not having casual content is a bit of a disappointment, but luckily, there's another game in the series that has amazing content outside of a competitive focus. I'll keep playing Rivals of Aether, for sure, and once Rivals 2 gets some more casual content, I'll have an easier time recommending it to most of my friends. (especially to the one friend that refuses to play rivals of aether anymore because "it has a sequel and i dont want to play a game that the devs are marketing as inferior" (?????????))

you are right in the end, the average joe shouldn't buy this game, they should buy rivals 1, i love the game so much, and play the shit out of it, but its for a very specific person right now, competitive crackheads like me. I do always feel like the criticism of "its not good they released it unfinished!" and "i still dislike the item shop aspect of the game" is not the best criticism when considering not only games are more expensive to make now, but it is *still* an indie studio making this game, and dan has said himself in interviews, that they had to release the game now instead of later to keep being able to have the money flowing to pay developers and make the game. You are looking with the lens of a big studio made this, and the ceo rushed the devs because they wanted the extra $$$ now and not later. I mean idk if that is exactly what you are thinking, idk im not you, but the vibe i got from the promotional videos on the monetization is "yeahhhh we knowwwww, this isn't great, but we need to keep the lights on and pay our devs" Of course, plenty of indies make games that are complete at launch with no microtransactions and are amazing at first, but most also slave away, burning their savings, and it never seems like a pleasant experience from the stories i've seen. I don't think the rivals team wants to do that. I also wanted to say, the critisism of "games aren't finished like they used to be" is also kinda silly directed at an indie game studio who again, needed to release the game now to keep money flowing, maybe early access would've helped but to me thats literally just a banner. The only other way to get more content out in a reasonable time frame to still pay for stuff is crunching and underpaying the devs, which no one wants. Also back then, people could own houses, groceries weren't so expensive, and rent wasn't high af. I feel like the world being more expensive to live in DOES affect how an indie team consisting of folk who live in that world like us monetizes and releases their game. I don't mind them doing a couple of not great things to make more money to pay the devs so they aren't struggling finacially to develop the game. Of course if it comes out they are crunching the devs and underpaying them anyway, disregard this paragraph. Anyways thats it, again, despite all i've said, yes the game is not in a state where i would recommend it to the average person HELL NO. But I do feel like there are reasons for the game being as it is, and i just wanted to state the reasons i feel that it is that way. Hope the internet wasn't too ruthless to you on the last vid man, i know how toxic the internet can get, and even if some of the critisism is fair, it still sucks to get so much, so i hope mentally ur doing okay from all of it. I do think you raised alot of good points tho (won't get into specifics cause too lazy to), and in the end, you are right that the game is not finished enough for a casual to resonably pick up and buy. Well nvm on all this actually i just remembered you pronounced "aether" wrong so screw you go work for ign or smth.

My main takeaway from this: Bro plays this game like its mario party and is saying he likes mario party 4 than mario party 6. Not really a big deal. But in our eyes, he's saying smash 64 is better than melee.

Smash 64 had 12 characters and like 6 stages? Idk is Smash 64 unfinished?

I still think the argumen of "the game just came out" holds more water in this context, given that Rivals 1 also came out incomplete, all the fun mechanics and options that the characters have weren't there in day 1 Rivals 2 is a WAY more complete game than Rivals 1's launch you even admitted yourself. I do agree that launching an "incomplete" game isn't the way to go, but saying that Rivals 1 on it's final stage is better than Rivals 2 at launch is a bit if a poor take to stand on. I mean you can feel whatever you feel about both game at their current state, that is completely valid, but people who argue that give it time for the game to mature it is a good counter point for this game, cause Rivals 1 was also in the same boat, and like we said, arguably Rivals 1 was a bit worse at launch and obviously even WORSE on early access, that is if you think Rivals 2 feels like am early access game. On a different note I like both Rivals 1 and 2, but I still think that throwing rocks at eachother till someone dies becomes monotonous to play, maybe not to watch, which is the problem I have with Rivals 1, giving more defensive options may slow the game down but it gives more viability at using paper or scissors, like in Rivals 2 makes the game more fun to play, and it is not like you randomly choose the 3 options and hope for the best, you have context to what to throw and make good desicions, which makes slowing the game down a good choose to look through those options. Game isn't perfect yeah, but it's being patched to get there, for example making recovery a bit worse, so edgeguarding is more viable and also make shields worse and parries better will encourage more aggression, they are still looking for that balance. The hasn't been a single fighting game that is are balanced at launch, and also not even have the best well definded mechanics, that comes with time and patches. and the reason why there's a shit ton of Street Fighter 2 versions. Fighting games are games that need to be tweaked after launch no game will avoid that EVER.

My only take on this is do you actually play competitive games or just party games because to me that heavily affects your credibility.

Comparing the two games is very hard because how much longer 1 has been out and receiving updates

My only negative reaction is hot terribly you pronounce "aether"

one small bit ill add for you as someone who loves both games, and has spent 1k on the kickstarter for this game so i could have my little character drawn by the devs into the game. Both are fantastic games, but the main ciriticism i see with rivals 2 is "Its gonna divide the community, im scared the community wont stand tall after this" and to that i say, not... really. it kinda already was divided between tournement goers, and modded creators and enjoyers. now that main competitive scene will be more focused on the new game that's getting free over time content. Rivals was an evolution to melee, this game is an evolution of project M, a game that isnt allowed to live in a tournement scene, and now has a chance to play an arguably better made game, that those people can thrive in and finally have a place for. I have friends who love 2 far more then 1 because the pace is slowed, so they can be more methodical about what they are doing when all is said and done. Especially since it plays more similar to what the newer gen is more accustomed to at this rate. Even with all of that, i think 1 is a better game because it's a finished game. a modded game, and balanced to the highest standard any game could be. I think 2 one day could be on it's level, when more comes. and for this im excited. Im happy the devs have an outlet to express their desire to make another fantastic game.

Still fair enough 👍

The standard of video game releases these days is so low we need James Cameron to go raise the bar again 😂 Also the patch yesterday is bringing many to your side as more and more are quitting as the Devs favor the top tier esports experience over the casual one

Yeahhhh, while I do understand many of your points (and at the very least understand where you're coming from) some points can come across as uninformed or lacking nuance. Definitely not here to hate though, i definitely understand not wanting a game to be lackluster at launch and then updated later, it's definitely more like smash in some respects, and the video quality is actually pretty good, but there are just a few problems i have with the video. (Oh there's a follow up, ill go watch that i guess)

Dang, I literally recorded a reply video with a couple of friends earlier today on the original review and then this pops up. Anyway, I might as well give my thoughts and feedback on it, though I'm going to be honest so be prepared. - There's a huge reason why the term "Smash Clone" is considered disrespectful: It's important to note that Platform Fighters have been struggling to co-exist with the impossibly high standards that Smash has set (mainly in Scope, Legacy, Star-Power and Resources) for a while now, especially since big companies like Nick, WB and Riot Game aren't willing to commit, leaving small indie devs as the main ones putting out entries. If you wanna talk about these games without stepping on any toes, Platform Fighter or at least Smash-Like is the much more preferred and honestly professional label. - "Why should I play this over Smash?" feels like a moot question by this point. If one of your first thoughts when playing a Plat Fighter is that... then you probably weren't that interested in the game to begin with. While there's definitely an audience for new ideas, it's very safe to assume the general gaming population just wants good games. Despite their efforts, other Plat Fighters were unable to get that 'Alternative to Smash' itch that Rivals 2 seems to finally scratch. - Small grip, but opening up the first 30 seconds talking about your personal situation with your friend being gone wasn't needed since it didn't really add anything to the review and could have been cut. If you really wanted to bring it up, then inserting something later in the video like "I'm very disappointed cause I was really looking forward to playing this with my friend when he came back" would have been enough. Short and sweet. - Clairen (my beloved :p) was added because of lore importance and they needed a Marth/Swordie equivalent. Ranno... they thought he was cool I guess. lol - Refunding the game with less than 2 hours of Playtime was at best... hasty. The point at 4:23 should be "Give it more time and you'll have a better educated outlook on it" Admitting you didn't even try the new characters is a prime example (while also combating your "The roster is smaller" point), how do you know if these characters weren't your new favorites? Or at least were enjoyable enough for you to wanna keep playing? Still didn't enjoy them after the fact? So be it. At least you know now and have more of a foundation behind your argument when try everything out. - The Mechanics being less unique... I honestly don't believe is a baseless argument. Shields & Ledges coming to the fray did waterdown some of the unique spice the original had, while the new additions of Getup, Ledge and Pummel Specials (along with the 50-50 Pummel break system)... while cool, weren't enough. (I do personally wish they added more new mechanics) However, many people agree that the lack of Shields and Ledges in RoA1 was too rigid and punishing. A big reason they didn't stick with it. The additions have been overall praised/been considered a net positive to an already fine at worst system flow. All the other little stuff like removal of Drift DI, no Wall-Jump out of Up-B, addition of Crouch Canceling, etc is all stuff I don't expect many casual players to notice nor really care about either. - Going out on a limb and saying you didn't follow Rivals 2's development, while only having Smash as your only other fighting game reference/standards. So there's PLENTY of context you were missing out on. It's not uncommon for even Triple A fighting games to release with smaller rosters then after their predecessors' DLC concluded. (Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat and Guilty Gear are all examples of this) Smash is lucky it can keep growing its roster through as the sequels go on. With the updates, the devs have gone on record that not only did they want some of these features on release (they just didn't have the time/resources for it), but they were also taking a major financial risk making all the DLC modes, stages, music, characters, etc for the rest of the game's LIFESPAN free. Adding in the Battle-pass (glad you did address it was all cosmetic) was basically a must to keep the ship afloat/support the devs. Since Aether Studios has maintained a strong relationship with their fans, it's basically a Tip Jar with a free shirt and hat. This is an indie fighting game sequel, built on a new engine with a different graphical direction, many things had to have been rebuilt from scratch (porting isn't a simple drag and drop process). It's very important to address that. Yes, you don't have to like these (I honestly was expecting some not to), but no mention of any of it in the review made you come off as harsh, ignorant, and even a little entitled. (Consider this a joint segment with the lack of modes complaint) The harshness when comparing a game with nearly 10 year of DLC support to a new, built from the ground up sequel didn't sit well either, as the knife edge's walk when making a fighting game sequel of what to add/change to be unique from the last game, while not TOO unique that it alienates/drives away fans of the previous entry is... God... I don't even wanna be put through that process. Just way more taxing then I believe it's given credit for. (Also disappointed you didn't mention the new voice acting, music/remixes and Sound Design. Many steps towards the higher presentation) - I agree with what Crimsonguitarist said, the Early Access label would have hurt way more since many people were very likely to shun it given it's now infamous rep. The point at 5:07 is putting words into other people's mouths. - As a possible counterargument, you may think something around the lines of "I shouldn't have to pay attention/care about the dev history/context when I paid money for this." If you just wanna play the game and that's it? Then that's completely fair. Even for an indie game. However, if you're going to make an online video review, saying why you shouldn't buy a game (an indie game) when you didn't even try to understand why it turned out like that? Then why should we listen to you... It really puts you on the wrong side of the argument if you're not even gonna look at the greater discussion. - I won't give you guff for not liking Rivals 2. That's completely fine by me. However, I feel confident saying you based your review at a gut-level, turning out real ill-informed and in bad-faith. Going forward, I heavily HEAVILY recommend you do some research for these reviews. Yes, I don't expect you to do a deep-dive into the history of Platform Fighters just to get into the right mindset. (I do plan on making a video explaining the quagmire the Sub-Genre is slogging through) But sometimes doing a little can go a long way. If you don't wanna do that... IDK, call it a first impression I guess. lol Anyway, hopefully you found this helpful. Glad to see you address this situation and hope to see you improve. You're video editing and production is already on the right track there.

You cant compare rivals 1 a game with several years of updates and balance patches to a brand new game. Rivals 1 launch was way worse at launch then 2 is.

Dislike.

You should've known what you were getting into with an outrageous title of the original video. Reception would've been much more understanding had you titled it something more discussion provoking, but I personally believe you did what you did to promote your channel. Otherwise, I see how Rivals 2 can be a disappointing adaptation for casual players. But you have to understand that you're a small portion of the player base. The franchise was always advertised as an esports alternative to vets of platform fighters who were dissatisfied with how uninteresting and unexpressive Smash instalments post Melee had become. I personally love the direction Rivals 2 is headed. Focus on the core gameplay, that's what will have me sink thousands of hours into. Not gimmicky modes or feature creeping. My friends and I vastly prefer Rivals 2 to 1 simply because of how more expressive it is, sorry you don't feel the same way. On the bright side, much like Rivals 1, more stuff is on the way like you mentioned in the video. Game's gonna start out as a competitively viable esport, then fun stuff for casual players is on the way. The criticism I would agree with you on would be the absence of an in-game tutorial. FFS I couldn't imagine how brutal it would be to get into a game where a majority of players have decades of platform fighter experience. Rival 1s tutorial being locked behind a paywall doesn't help either. (Neither does the "new player guide")

2 things before I mention stuff 1. Huge props on this vid, not just that you apologized in the first place, but that you stuck to your opinions and only apologized for what you felt you messed up on and didn't feel the need to bend a knee to anyone. We should be able to agree to disagree, cause fans of the game tend to get heated towards those who don't agree (including me at times lol) 2. I still think that you as the consumer of both games are completely in the right for not caring about upcoming content as much as hardcore fans of the game and taking what each has a face value. I do hope your opinion shifts if those content updates come to fruition, but as for not I really can't blame you for any of that. I honestly think you do a great job through most of your video either making good, meaningful apologies or solid, understandable points to stand on for most of your opinions. The thing I mainly still disagree with to at least some degree is your elaboration the last point, since it's a pretty nuanced and complicated but also the most important point. The game releasing when it's "finished" is something that people in this community will probably argue a lot against when it comes to this sort of game for 3 main reasons. The first is the Indie studio behind it Aether Studios. It's simply not a financially viable option for them to be able to do something like that. Since the previous game is basically their only income line, outside of the kickstarter which is really just a little temporary boost to get them along till launch, it's basically unfeasible for them to be able to spend that long of a period of time making this game without a sustainable inflow to support it's continued development, whether it's people buying the game or its cosmetic line. Secondly, I know you mentioned that this game feels like it's in early access based on how little it has compared to rivals 1, but to who've been watching this game develop it's had so much time that it feels like a beta wouldn't really make sense. Since it's focus is around the competitive scene, it wouldn't really make sense to put it in beta since that part has been thoroughly fleshed out (balance doesn't count, i'll get to that in my 3rd point). It has been in development for many years and had around 6 months of beta weekends with public testing of the game to make sure it was prepped for launch, so having all that time + funding from the kickstarter just to label itself as an "early access" game might've done more hard for it's reputation since people wonder why something with that much work is still not "finished", even though the game's main focus has been tested and prepped as much as the devs wanted to (or could) get it to for launch. Finally and most importantly, as i mentioned before on my comment for the first video, the game is heavily focused around community. It's the experience of the community coming together playing the game, competing, characters being balanced and adjusted, the hype around new character releases and content additions, and more that the community wants from this game. Now, you might not be a part of this, or only some of these aspects may apply to you, which is completely fair, but with the game's focus on stuff like this, the game's development cycle becomes intertwined as an important part of the community and it's progression. Using cosmetics to fund a long term development may seem like it's the same scummy thing that other games tend to do to try to squeeze money out of players, but from the community perspective, the goal is to be able to develop and build this game up for the community without locking that progression behind paywalls as it is. Again, if these points don't really apply to you, thats completely fair. This is just the reasons why I personally find the sequel to have as much potential as I see it to have.

Good video the only thing i disagree with is the game being unfinished on release because of patches and road maps. This has been the norm now for awhile especially for fighting games to have seasons, patches and roadmaps to let us know what is to come, Capcom did this with SFV and SF6, Arc did this with Guilty Gear Strive, Bandai with Tekken 7 and 8 etc. Also look at the character size from when those games started to now, especially SFV. This is just how modern games are now, I mean look back at how many busted and broken games there were before we had patches and hotfixes for games to the point the game was unplayable and there was nothing you could do about it like for example Marvel vs Capcom 2 has so many glitches in that game that if it was released in this era of gaming most of those glitches would have been patched out and fixed and there not a small indie team. I rather a game come out and have a roadmap on what's to come with pacthes and hotfixes than a studio release a finished game and be like "well, here you go have at it" then never to be heard from again cause players are gonna find glitches broken mechanics that will need patches and hotfixes. Other than that good video

a good followup and yeah i agree on putting the EA label on it.

Massive respect for making a followup and owning up to some of the mistakes in your previous video - just wanted to point some things out for clarification to clear up some points you made in this one: - I agree with you that compared to Rivals 2, Rivals 1 has the better casual experience. However, on release Rivals 1 had practically the same level of single player content that Rivals 2 has (story mode in Rivals 1 is a glorified arcade mode). The version that a lot of people played Rivals 1 in was the Definitive Edition with Workshop support, when the dev team had time to add in more casual content in the game. Aether Studios wants to focus its support on its competitive community first since those are the people who will stick around and champion the game when casual players find something new to play. - The reason why we're getting the item shop in the way we have it now is specifically a balance between the devs being able to afford making new content for the game at the high standard they set for themselves alongside removing pain points for consumers like paid character DLC. If this game had character DLC I think the skins would cost less, but then the game would effectively go up in price every time a new character is released and that's significantly worse from both a competitive AND casual perspective. Rivals 1 used to be around $40 USD for all characters until the Definitive Edition came out, so I'd gladly take pricer skin bundles instead of gatekeeping characters. - The reason why Rivals 2 didn't go for Early Access is that Early Access has become over-saturated with a lot of really poorly made and rushed games, to a point where customers are more likely to see Early Access nowadays as an unfinished mess. For every ULTRAKILL and Baldur's Gate 3 you have dozens of half-baked, unpolished games that use the same title, and I think Rivals 2 wanted to avoid comparing itself to that. Plus, there's a sizeable portion of players that won't even consider buying an Early Access game, and if you're a developer looking to sell your game to as many people as possible that detail is important to consider. Imo Rivals 2 did everything it set out to do on release, but I totally get your disappointment at the lack of casual content.