I totally agree with you here, every time dismissive phrases get thrown around, it's a big missed opportunity not just to talk about something one is clear passionate enough about to be skillful, but an opportunity to teach others the things you mastered.
Some people just want to feel superior, which is silly when it's just video games. When I'm struggling, though, I can find myself just wishing for some good advice, at least after I've whined enough.
Sounds like a lack of empathy. I'm reminded of 'Gaming for a Non-Gamer,' a great video where a gamer's wife tries playing video games for the first time, without coaching or help, and he's very surprised by her reactions. The things she has trouble with are often things he takes for granted as common knowledge. It truly is surprising how often games fail to truly educate about competent gameplay. A fighting game may have a list of special moves but it doesn't teach you about how combos work or knockdown states, etc. I personally struggle with most 3D games that involve puzzles or navigating large areas. It all looks the same to me and I just get lost constantly. I have trouble discerning what is interactable and what is just part of the environment. That's why I prefer 2D games. I don't know what causes this, but its caused me to avoid a ton of titles. There's a few exceptions, like Shadow of the Colossus with its sword guiding the way.
Played Mario Party with my mom recently and we had to constantly remind her to push A to advance stuff, and I once watched a friend slam through a rhythm game I could barely beat a level in. Different people are good at different things, which I don't get why it's so crazy to acknowledge.
Your problems with games sound like a skill issue. I mostly use it, 'get gud' or 'u suk' ironically, but I remember a professional Kirby review where the reviewer was doodling in the corner of the screen far from Kirby and complaining about Kirby not following the paths she drew. Now, that was a skill issue.
Oh lord, Canvas Curse. Always have trouble with gimmicks, since I can't tell whether it's me or them hamfisting weird controls in. That example sound pretty bad, though.
People with opinions like yours give me faith in humanity. I must admit. Sometimes it's fun to be a little gremlin and say "L" or "skill issue" with no further elaboration... I never do it seriously, though.
Feel like you're giving me a little too much credit there, but I will accept the compliment. Thank you. Me personally, though, if I ever want to get under someone's skin, I just tell them about how much I love Sonic Forces.
*So this video is actually about people's difficulties or lack of willingness to properly communicate what they mean.* I had a very similar debate with an online acquaintance. We both did unpaid TCG card reviews for fun on the same website. He _hated_ the term "playstyle", a term I found useful. After some back and forth, I realized it wasn't actually the word that was the problem, it was people using it to justify their lack of skill and/or poor decisions. As is probably obvious, a "playstyle" or "play style", with respect to really *any* game (not just TCGs) is the sum of your play preferences. In a TCG, it affects not only how you build your deck, but how you play it. My acquaintance got sick of people using it as an excuse/justification for poor decisions in deck building and when playing the game. They wouldn't tolerate people trying to explain _why_ their decisions/deck building were poor. It isn't even like folks were _completely_ using it wrong, either. If a strategy doesn't suit your natural inclinations, even if that strategy is normally more effective it may not serve you well. If you _know_ your skill is below the threshold of what it takes to win a tournament, you may find your playstyle gravitates towards managing more luck-based effects, where as a high skill player may have little or even nothing to gain from whatever RNG is built into the game. *Skill issue is the same.* Yeah, it is frustrating how people use it as an excuse to justify poor game design (or other mechanical issues) within a game. Or who just toss it out as an insult... *...but sometimes it is true.* I don't think I'm all too good a gamer *but* the more I played with my nephews, especially the youngest, the more I realized I took a lot of gaming skills/knowledge for granted. They were amazed I'd play something like New Super Mario Bros. Wii and just "know" where certain secrets were or how to reach them. Said secrets just happened to follow similar patterns/logic to past secrets. It is like how you see a pit in a platformer and you *don't* jump down it even in a game with no fall damage. In fact, your skill in video games, based on experience playing them, tells you that a pit in a platformer is more likely than not bottomless and you'll just die if you fall into it. Granted, it isn't skill that let's me enjoy playing the Virtual Boy. That really seems to be a biology issue; I play it, and assuming I can find a comfortable position, the worst I have to deal with when I'm done and pull my head away is the same feeling I get from walking out of a darkened theater into sunlight. I've defended Mega Man X6 many times before, because overall I think it is a good game. *Flawed* but overall a lot better than people give it credit for being. Little of "the bad" in it were new phenomena. New to Mega Man X? _Maybe,_ but not new to Mega Man as a whole. The areas of poor (or even unfairly cheap) game design? I had a lot of experience with it from NES, Genesis, Game Boy, and SNES titles. Something I think modern reviewers need to accept - *not* like, just accept - is that "How was I supposed to know there'd be spikes there?!" _used_ to be standard game design. As long as games have had some kind of way to save your progress (Save file, passwords, etc.) then *unfortunately* the same holds true for "Oh great, now I have to reset and try again." Though that had to have been a nightmare on original hardware because PS1 load times. I first played X6 via the Mega Man X Anniversary Collection on the GCN and it was bad enough then; re-playing it via Steam ended up being rather enjoyable. I mean, with respect to *both* problems I listed. Plus, since I watched a lot of TH-cam, I found out that some things that were frustrating game design had workarounds. Like an infamous jump that is nearly impossible without the correct Parts/Armor.
The whole play style thing, makes me think of when people try to accuse someone of playing the game 'wrong', whether it be them missing a key feature, them just being elitist, the player making a conscious choice (definitely have done this a few times), or Gamefreak denouncing nuzlockes and Nintendo patching out arrow farming. Also feel like at some point, I should stream X6 with a fan of the game, ask them to justify it every time I get mad, and see where things go.
@@ExploDjinn *This is the second, of two separate replies. Instead of one even larger, messier one where I try to address everything you said in one go (like I did with that first post). If you're not up for it, I understand. Either way, thank you for your time.* Now I'm worrying because I don't see my _first_ response. I hope TH-cam didn't eat it... *Anyway,* As for the Mega Man X6 stream, that's not a bad idea, but you may be just as well served by looking for video of someone playing who *does* enjoy it. I suspect the real difference is along the lines of "This bad thing in the game doesn't bother me like it bothers you." I strongly suspect that's why I like X6 but have such a love/hate relationship with X5. Like, you'd see me come to one of the blind screw-you-over jumps and not only is it not bothering me because I already know how to make it now that it somewhere around my 12th playthrough of the game (rough estimate), but even the first time I probably was like "Ah, a blind jump in an area where spikes abound. Probably gonna die but here goes." "Probably" because my first playthrough was probably in 2006 or 2007, via the _Mega Man X Collection;_ s'been almost 20 years so I don't truly remember it. ^^' *But how can you stand such nonsense?* Because, I grew up with it being a common occurrence in video games. What would be a "retro" style now was "cutting edge" back then, allowing some games to get by with style over substance. There's also the whole "The internet _technically_ exists, but even video game magazines are a rare thing." era, where you probably were just *stuck* with a bad game if you got one, and it might be one of the few you got that year because (adjusted for inflation) games were around $120 USD a pop, and you - or rather, I - was just some dumb kid without an allowance or effective way to earn money. *It does **_not_** make it "good" game design,* it just means it doesn't bother me as much and/or I have at least an idea of how to _deal_ with it. *Contrast that with what hurt X5 for me.* I _think_ by the time of the _Mega Man X Collection_ even I knew to look up fan made guides on GameFAQs... but how acquiring parts worked in X5 was so Byzantine that I didn't understand it even _with_ guides. In fact, it wasn't until earlier this year, when I *finally* got the _Mega Man X Legacy Collection 2_ that I *finally* understood how acquiring parts works in X5. Not that I was constantly trying to figure it out for the last 20 years. Though I kinda like the Guns 'n Roses naming scheme of the English release *now,* I _loathed it_ back in the day. This was also the first title to *stupidly* force you to collect all armor pieces *before* being able to use them at all... while still locking them behind obstacles that required all but beating the game before you could do so. *Why isn't X6 as bad.* Could be perception. X5 came after X4, my _favorite_ entry in the series. In the present, I've learned to _not_ expect such a sequel to be better, but to be satisfied if it is _almost_ as good, or at least is some kind of "good". X4 I actually played on the Saturn, when it was new, after having played X1 and X2 on the SNES. Skipping X3 made it seem like the X games just kept getting better, or at least, consistently "as good" as each other. X5 and X6 were the sequels I'd skipped because I was already becoming an anti-Sony fanboy at the time, but the _Mega Man X Collection_ let me play them on a Nintendo console so I was pretty excited, even if I recalled them scoring poorly in game magazines. *Bad* reviews of *great* Classic Series Mega Man games, with folks complaining about how they were "just more of the same" desensitized me to such reviews... when *this time* they were spot on. So... yeah, went into X6 with X5 having lowered the bar *substantially.* This helped X6 seem not as bad, if not at least kinda good. While acquiring the parts can still be _too_ difficult in X6, at least it doesn't take a guide to understand the basic concept (just to know which rescuable Reploids have which parts, and how best to reach them). Even with the janky Engrish translation of the game. Even finding out Commander Yammark was a dude. ;) Oh, and time has really helped X6. At least for me. As I keep mentioning, being able to reload a Save to try again - not even a "Save State", just a regular ol' save - isn't the time sink it once was. Also, perspective matters. Not only do I now have X7, X8, and XDive to compare X6 with, I now realize how often Inafune can be *wrong.* One of the things that _really_ seems to bother some fans is that X5 was supposed to end the X series, but X6 was done without Inafune only to basically milk the franchise for more money... *except Inafune was being an idiot in this department.* It was at best _naive_ of him to think Capcom would end the X series, when the Classic Series was still going and - by this time - the Legends Series was as complete as it turns out we were ever getting. Unless you count the demo of Legends 3 for the 3DS. >_< Oh, and Inafune just wasn't the storyteller he thought he was. The storytelling that made the X series _good_ wasn't properly evolving alongside it. X4 got the big revelations and animated cut scenes *alongside* great gameplay to feel like it was... but reverting back to static cut scenes and text, while *once again* introducing a bunch of minor characters who _should_ have been major supporting players... yeah, this has become a big pet peeve of mine. Though I understand if it doesn't bother you (or most others). The whole playing X5, being like "Wait, the Colonel's alive?!" "Wait, he's Sigma?" "Oh, he's just reusing the Colonel's look *and* his name is "Signas" - with an "n" and extra "s" - for _some_ reason. O_o". I even like the additions to the cast, I just wish they were used better *or* not even added at all. *Edit:* Oh, and I should add X4, with its (for the time) impressive attempt at a story _still_ had plenty of less-than-cool moments and instances of bad storytelling. Dunno if the original Japanese script made more sense or not, but the English was often quite confusing. Like when X/Zero first encounters Sigma and we get the flashback to Sigma _barely_ defeating a berserk Zero. Which had to take place before the first X game. Then Sigma, who is supposed to be taunting us that Zero is Wily's final creation, seems surprised by it?! *Or throwing a bunch of new characters at us, only to dispose of them by the end of the game.* Suddenly adding Iris, Colonel, etc. is _more forgivable_ to me because at least you could tell they were going all out for this game *and* it wasn't something they did in the previous title (unless you're a *big* Dr Doppler fan). _Whew!_ That went on longer than even I expected. Kudos to anyone who read this far and if it makes no sense... my bad!
@@ExploDjinn This is the *repost* of one of two separate replies. It has been 10 hours and the first post hasn't shown up, so I'm assuming TH-cam ate it. >_< Instead of one even larger, messier one where I try to address everything you said in one go (like I did with that first post). If you're not up for it, I understand. Either way, thank you for your time. *Just to clarify,* the "playstyle" example was a situation where the person complaining about the term was _technically_ wrong. People were using it as an excuse, so he hated it, but it wasn't because the term was bad but because people were misusing it (intentionally or not). When you let someone know it is a "skill issue" *and it is,* it is the same situation. When it is used as an excuse for bad gameplay, bad game design, confusing instructions, etc. it becomes a problem. Funny you should mention the concept of "playing the game wrong", as I almost included an example of that. I've got over 180 hours on _Vampire Survivors_ *but* I have only owned it since October 30th. I purchased it for myself, having gotten hooked on it playing with my nephews on their X Box (via Game Pass). A friend, seeing how much I loved it, eventually bought three of the five DLC for me. Yes, again, in the less than two months I've owned it. *How is this relevant?* Guess what game I was playing wrong? Can't remember if you've played _Vampire Survivors_ but if you haven't: you control how your character moves but the character attacks automatically, based on the weapons equipped and (probably) some in game stats. Some (not all) defeated enemies drop crystals that function as Experience Points. Snag them to Level Up and either also level up an equipped weapon *or* a give you a random selection of additional weapons of which you may pick one. *There's more to it,* but that is what matters for me to explain that, when I played, I mostly ran away from enemies looking for light sources I could smash that would _sometimes_ drop power-ups, other times drop Gold that could be spent to unlock more characters or permanent character upgrades. *That doesn't work.* Which is why I wasn't making much progress. Still _mostly_ having fun with it, but I was either oblivious to the deeper strategies, or struggling to deduce how they worked (Weapon Evolution). Fortunately, while chatting with a friend we got to discussing _Vampire Survivors_ and he explained how I needed to *stop* running away so much, and learn how to walk around enemies while my character attacked them. How to more effectively level up and what to pick. Oh, and a link to the Vampire Survivors Fan Wiki so I could look up the stuff he didn't explain. This... _might_ be shorter than the original. Hope I didn't leave out anything important. Wonder if TH-cam will randomly spit out the original now. XD
@@KamisamanoOtaku I'm familiar with Vampire Survivors but haven't played it myself. My own example of playing the game wrong would be Dynasty Warriors, when they throw out a big, scary boss, with the goal being to retreat, but I insist on beating them anyway. Screw my score.
The problem is a lot of people state some ridiculous things like "mega man 1 is the hardest nes game" while the game is objectively easier than most nes game simply by allowing you to have unlimited game overs and only having to replay one level, if I read an opinion like this, I instantly assume that this person has not played a lot of nes games
To be fair, MM1 was pretty rough. I could ramble on about a lot of its problems but... yeah, there are definitely meaner ones, though I won't list examples to avoid self reporting.
@ mm1 is pretty difficult, but it is fair, which most nes games aren't, a lot of nes games were artificially made longer by making you replay the entire game just because you lost 2 or 3 times
My take on skill issue: It only applies to people who call a game bad simply because they can't beat it, not because it's genuinely poorly designed. If you don't like the game because it's difficult, that's fine, it's just not your taste. But if you say high difficulty is a bad design choice that genuinely makes the game bad (nobody directly says this obviously, they just call the game frustrating/unfair, but the point still stands), then that's absolutely a skill issue on your part. Just because you can't keep up with a game's demand for skill, that doesn't make it bad. If you think the game has genuinely unfair aspects to it, then that's a valid criticism. Of course it's a blurry line between plain hard and unfair moments, but most of the time, you should be able to understand when a game just isn't for you and when it's genuinely poorly designed, otherwise I will absolutely call out a skill issue.
That sort of stuff can be open to interpretation. I can beat Mega Man Zero just fine, but I won't try to justify how that game's structured, whereas others might claim that the cyber elves and lives systems are there for intentional challenge. And even if something was a matter of skill, I'd still try to think of a more constructive way to put it.
@ Nah with something like MMZ it's understandable, even if MMZ isn't the hardest one out there. I think a better example is something like Megaman and Bass (the sfc version of course), while the game has its fair share of off-screen shenanigans, it's not nearly as bad as people make it out to be, as it's still one of the more competent Megaman games (It's my personal favorite for the classic series too) and the things people complain about the most are the more readable parts if anything (at least from my experience). There is also something important to note that I think you should've mentioned in your video, it's that sometimes, someone can complain about a game mechanic being frustrating even if they can beat the game in question. MMZ1 is actually a good example for this, the lives system doesn't necessarily make the game harder if anything, it just makes the experience more TEDIOUS, and, well, less fun. Frustration doesn't come merely from demand for skill, that's something I feel like a lot of people fail to point out. Heck, I'd argue the off-screen garbage found in some of MMZ1's levels is more egregious than the lives system if we're talking purely about difficulty of execution.
I totally agree with you here, every time dismissive phrases get thrown around, it's a big missed opportunity not just to talk about something one is clear passionate enough about to be skillful, but an opportunity to teach others the things you mastered.
Some people just want to feel superior, which is silly when it's just video games. When I'm struggling, though, I can find myself just wishing for some good advice, at least after I've whined enough.
Sounds like a lack of empathy. I'm reminded of 'Gaming for a Non-Gamer,' a great video where a gamer's wife tries playing video games for the first time, without coaching or help, and he's very surprised by her reactions. The things she has trouble with are often things he takes for granted as common knowledge. It truly is surprising how often games fail to truly educate about competent gameplay. A fighting game may have a list of special moves but it doesn't teach you about how combos work or knockdown states, etc.
I personally struggle with most 3D games that involve puzzles or navigating large areas. It all looks the same to me and I just get lost constantly. I have trouble discerning what is interactable and what is just part of the environment. That's why I prefer 2D games. I don't know what causes this, but its caused me to avoid a ton of titles. There's a few exceptions, like Shadow of the Colossus with its sword guiding the way.
Played Mario Party with my mom recently and we had to constantly remind her to push A to advance stuff, and I once watched a friend slam through a rhythm game I could barely beat a level in. Different people are good at different things, which I don't get why it's so crazy to acknowledge.
Your problems with games sound like a skill issue.
I mostly use it, 'get gud' or 'u suk' ironically, but I remember a professional Kirby review where the reviewer was doodling in the corner of the screen far from Kirby and complaining about Kirby not following the paths she drew. Now, that was a skill issue.
Oh lord, Canvas Curse. Always have trouble with gimmicks, since I can't tell whether it's me or them hamfisting weird controls in. That example sound pretty bad, though.
People with opinions like yours give me faith in humanity.
I must admit. Sometimes it's fun to be a little gremlin and say "L" or "skill issue" with no further elaboration... I never do it seriously, though.
Feel like you're giving me a little too much credit there, but I will accept the compliment. Thank you. Me personally, though, if I ever want to get under someone's skin, I just tell them about how much I love Sonic Forces.
@@ExploDjinn how much you love WHAT.
*So this video is actually about people's difficulties or lack of willingness to properly communicate what they mean.*
I had a very similar debate with an online acquaintance. We both did unpaid TCG card reviews for fun on the same website. He _hated_ the term "playstyle", a term I found useful. After some back and forth, I realized it wasn't actually the word that was the problem, it was people using it to justify their lack of skill and/or poor decisions.
As is probably obvious, a "playstyle" or "play style", with respect to really *any* game (not just TCGs) is the sum of your play preferences. In a TCG, it affects not only how you build your deck, but how you play it. My acquaintance got sick of people using it as an excuse/justification for poor decisions in deck building and when playing the game. They wouldn't tolerate people trying to explain _why_ their decisions/deck building were poor.
It isn't even like folks were _completely_ using it wrong, either. If a strategy doesn't suit your natural inclinations, even if that strategy is normally more effective it may not serve you well. If you _know_ your skill is below the threshold of what it takes to win a tournament, you may find your playstyle gravitates towards managing more luck-based effects, where as a high skill player may have little or even nothing to gain from whatever RNG is built into the game.
*Skill issue is the same.* Yeah, it is frustrating how people use it as an excuse to justify poor game design (or other mechanical issues) within a game. Or who just toss it out as an insult...
*...but sometimes it is true.* I don't think I'm all too good a gamer *but* the more I played with my nephews, especially the youngest, the more I realized I took a lot of gaming skills/knowledge for granted. They were amazed I'd play something like New Super Mario Bros. Wii and just "know" where certain secrets were or how to reach them. Said secrets just happened to follow similar patterns/logic to past secrets. It is like how you see a pit in a platformer and you *don't* jump down it even in a game with no fall damage. In fact, your skill in video games, based on experience playing them, tells you that a pit in a platformer is more likely than not bottomless and you'll just die if you fall into it.
Granted, it isn't skill that let's me enjoy playing the Virtual Boy. That really seems to be a biology issue; I play it, and assuming I can find a comfortable position, the worst I have to deal with when I'm done and pull my head away is the same feeling I get from walking out of a darkened theater into sunlight.
I've defended Mega Man X6 many times before, because overall I think it is a good game. *Flawed* but overall a lot better than people give it credit for being. Little of "the bad" in it were new phenomena. New to Mega Man X? _Maybe,_ but not new to Mega Man as a whole. The areas of poor (or even unfairly cheap) game design? I had a lot of experience with it from NES, Genesis, Game Boy, and SNES titles. Something I think modern reviewers need to accept - *not* like, just accept - is that "How was I supposed to know there'd be spikes there?!" _used_ to be standard game design.
As long as games have had some kind of way to save your progress (Save file, passwords, etc.) then *unfortunately* the same holds true for "Oh great, now I have to reset and try again." Though that had to have been a nightmare on original hardware because PS1 load times. I first played X6 via the Mega Man X Anniversary Collection on the GCN and it was bad enough then; re-playing it via Steam ended up being rather enjoyable. I mean, with respect to *both* problems I listed. Plus, since I watched a lot of TH-cam, I found out that some things that were frustrating game design had workarounds. Like an infamous jump that is nearly impossible without the correct Parts/Armor.
The whole play style thing, makes me think of when people try to accuse someone of playing the game 'wrong', whether it be them missing a key feature, them just being elitist, the player making a conscious choice (definitely have done this a few times), or Gamefreak denouncing nuzlockes and Nintendo patching out arrow farming.
Also feel like at some point, I should stream X6 with a fan of the game, ask them to justify it every time I get mad, and see where things go.
@@ExploDjinn *This is the second, of two separate replies. Instead of one even larger, messier one where I try to address everything you said in one go (like I did with that first post). If you're not up for it, I understand. Either way, thank you for your time.*
Now I'm worrying because I don't see my _first_ response. I hope TH-cam didn't eat it...
*Anyway,* As for the Mega Man X6 stream, that's not a bad idea, but you may be just as well served by looking for video of someone playing who *does* enjoy it. I suspect the real difference is along the lines of "This bad thing in the game doesn't bother me like it bothers you." I strongly suspect that's why I like X6 but have such a love/hate relationship with X5.
Like, you'd see me come to one of the blind screw-you-over jumps and not only is it not bothering me because I already know how to make it now that it somewhere around my 12th playthrough of the game (rough estimate), but even the first time I probably was like "Ah, a blind jump in an area where spikes abound. Probably gonna die but here goes." "Probably" because my first playthrough was probably in 2006 or 2007, via the _Mega Man X Collection;_ s'been almost 20 years so I don't truly remember it. ^^'
*But how can you stand such nonsense?* Because, I grew up with it being a common occurrence in video games. What would be a "retro" style now was "cutting edge" back then, allowing some games to get by with style over substance. There's also the whole "The internet _technically_ exists, but even video game magazines are a rare thing." era, where you probably were just *stuck* with a bad game if you got one, and it might be one of the few you got that year because (adjusted for inflation) games were around $120 USD a pop, and you - or rather, I - was just some dumb kid without an allowance or effective way to earn money. *It does **_not_** make it "good" game design,* it just means it doesn't bother me as much and/or I have at least an idea of how to _deal_ with it.
*Contrast that with what hurt X5 for me.* I _think_ by the time of the _Mega Man X Collection_ even I knew to look up fan made guides on GameFAQs... but how acquiring parts worked in X5 was so Byzantine that I didn't understand it even _with_ guides. In fact, it wasn't until earlier this year, when I *finally* got the _Mega Man X Legacy Collection 2_ that I *finally* understood how acquiring parts works in X5. Not that I was constantly trying to figure it out for the last 20 years. Though I kinda like the Guns 'n Roses naming scheme of the English release *now,* I _loathed it_ back in the day. This was also the first title to *stupidly* force you to collect all armor pieces *before* being able to use them at all... while still locking them behind obstacles that required all but beating the game before you could do so.
*Why isn't X6 as bad.* Could be perception. X5 came after X4, my _favorite_ entry in the series. In the present, I've learned to _not_ expect such a sequel to be better, but to be satisfied if it is _almost_ as good, or at least is some kind of "good". X4 I actually played on the Saturn, when it was new, after having played X1 and X2 on the SNES. Skipping X3 made it seem like the X games just kept getting better, or at least, consistently "as good" as each other. X5 and X6 were the sequels I'd skipped because I was already becoming an anti-Sony fanboy at the time, but the _Mega Man X Collection_ let me play them on a Nintendo console so I was pretty excited, even if I recalled them scoring poorly in game magazines. *Bad* reviews of *great* Classic Series Mega Man games, with folks complaining about how they were "just more of the same" desensitized me to such reviews... when *this time* they were spot on.
So... yeah, went into X6 with X5 having lowered the bar *substantially.* This helped X6 seem not as bad, if not at least kinda good. While acquiring the parts can still be _too_ difficult in X6, at least it doesn't take a guide to understand the basic concept (just to know which rescuable Reploids have which parts, and how best to reach them). Even with the janky Engrish translation of the game. Even finding out Commander Yammark was a dude. ;)
Oh, and time has really helped X6. At least for me. As I keep mentioning, being able to reload a Save to try again - not even a "Save State", just a regular ol' save - isn't the time sink it once was. Also, perspective matters. Not only do I now have X7, X8, and XDive to compare X6 with, I now realize how often Inafune can be *wrong.* One of the things that _really_ seems to bother some fans is that X5 was supposed to end the X series, but X6 was done without Inafune only to basically milk the franchise for more money... *except Inafune was being an idiot in this department.* It was at best _naive_ of him to think Capcom would end the X series, when the Classic Series was still going and - by this time - the Legends Series was as complete as it turns out we were ever getting. Unless you count the demo of Legends 3 for the 3DS. >_<
Oh, and Inafune just wasn't the storyteller he thought he was. The storytelling that made the X series _good_ wasn't properly evolving alongside it. X4 got the big revelations and animated cut scenes *alongside* great gameplay to feel like it was... but reverting back to static cut scenes and text, while *once again* introducing a bunch of minor characters who _should_ have been major supporting players... yeah, this has become a big pet peeve of mine. Though I understand if it doesn't bother you (or most others). The whole playing X5, being like "Wait, the Colonel's alive?!" "Wait, he's Sigma?" "Oh, he's just reusing the Colonel's look *and* his name is "Signas" - with an "n" and extra "s" - for _some_ reason. O_o". I even like the additions to the cast, I just wish they were used better *or* not even added at all.
*Edit:* Oh, and I should add X4, with its (for the time) impressive attempt at a story _still_ had plenty of less-than-cool moments and instances of bad storytelling. Dunno if the original Japanese script made more sense or not, but the English was often quite confusing. Like when X/Zero first encounters Sigma and we get the flashback to Sigma _barely_ defeating a berserk Zero. Which had to take place before the first X game. Then Sigma, who is supposed to be taunting us that Zero is Wily's final creation, seems surprised by it?! *Or throwing a bunch of new characters at us, only to dispose of them by the end of the game.* Suddenly adding Iris, Colonel, etc. is _more forgivable_ to me because at least you could tell they were going all out for this game *and* it wasn't something they did in the previous title (unless you're a *big* Dr Doppler fan).
_Whew!_ That went on longer than even I expected. Kudos to anyone who read this far and if it makes no sense... my bad!
@@ExploDjinn This is the *repost* of one of two separate replies. It has been 10 hours and the first post hasn't shown up, so I'm assuming TH-cam ate it. >_< Instead of one even larger, messier one where I try to address everything you said in one go (like I did with that first post). If you're not up for it, I understand. Either way, thank you for your time.
*Just to clarify,* the "playstyle" example was a situation where the person complaining about the term was _technically_ wrong. People were using it as an excuse, so he hated it, but it wasn't because the term was bad but because people were misusing it (intentionally or not). When you let someone know it is a "skill issue" *and it is,* it is the same situation. When it is used as an excuse for bad gameplay, bad game design, confusing instructions, etc. it becomes a problem.
Funny you should mention the concept of "playing the game wrong", as I almost included an example of that. I've got over 180 hours on _Vampire Survivors_ *but* I have only owned it since October 30th. I purchased it for myself, having gotten hooked on it playing with my nephews on their X Box (via Game Pass). A friend, seeing how much I loved it, eventually bought three of the five DLC for me. Yes, again, in the less than two months I've owned it. *How is this relevant?*
Guess what game I was playing wrong? Can't remember if you've played _Vampire Survivors_ but if you haven't: you control how your character moves but the character attacks automatically, based on the weapons equipped and (probably) some in game stats. Some (not all) defeated enemies drop crystals that function as Experience Points. Snag them to Level Up and either also level up an equipped weapon *or* a give you a random selection of additional weapons of which you may pick one. *There's more to it,* but that is what matters for me to explain that, when I played, I mostly ran away from enemies looking for light sources I could smash that would _sometimes_ drop power-ups, other times drop Gold that could be spent to unlock more characters or permanent character upgrades.
*That doesn't work.* Which is why I wasn't making much progress. Still _mostly_ having fun with it, but I was either oblivious to the deeper strategies, or struggling to deduce how they worked (Weapon Evolution). Fortunately, while chatting with a friend we got to discussing _Vampire Survivors_ and he explained how I needed to *stop* running away so much, and learn how to walk around enemies while my character attacked them. How to more effectively level up and what to pick. Oh, and a link to the Vampire Survivors Fan Wiki so I could look up the stuff he didn't explain.
This... _might_ be shorter than the original. Hope I didn't leave out anything important. Wonder if TH-cam will randomly spit out the original now. XD
@@KamisamanoOtaku I'm familiar with Vampire Survivors but haven't played it myself. My own example of playing the game wrong would be Dynasty Warriors, when they throw out a big, scary boss, with the goal being to retreat, but I insist on beating them anyway. Screw my score.
The problem is a lot of people state some ridiculous things like "mega man 1 is the hardest nes game" while the game is objectively easier than most nes game simply by allowing you to have unlimited game overs and only having to replay one level, if I read an opinion like this, I instantly assume that this person has not played a lot of nes games
To be fair, MM1 was pretty rough. I could ramble on about a lot of its problems but... yeah, there are definitely meaner ones, though I won't list examples to avoid self reporting.
@ mm1 is pretty difficult, but it is fair, which most nes games aren't, a lot of nes games were artificially made longer by making you replay the entire game just because you lost 2 or 3 times
Skill difference?
That might work, depending on how you use it.
My take on skill issue: It only applies to people who call a game bad simply because they can't beat it, not because it's genuinely poorly designed. If you don't like the game because it's difficult, that's fine, it's just not your taste. But if you say high difficulty is a bad design choice that genuinely makes the game bad (nobody directly says this obviously, they just call the game frustrating/unfair, but the point still stands), then that's absolutely a skill issue on your part. Just because you can't keep up with a game's demand for skill, that doesn't make it bad. If you think the game has genuinely unfair aspects to it, then that's a valid criticism. Of course it's a blurry line between plain hard and unfair moments, but most of the time, you should be able to understand when a game just isn't for you and when it's genuinely poorly designed, otherwise I will absolutely call out a skill issue.
That sort of stuff can be open to interpretation. I can beat Mega Man Zero just fine, but I won't try to justify how that game's structured, whereas others might claim that the cyber elves and lives systems are there for intentional challenge. And even if something was a matter of skill, I'd still try to think of a more constructive way to put it.
@ Nah with something like MMZ it's understandable, even if MMZ isn't the hardest one out there. I think a better example is something like Megaman and Bass (the sfc version of course), while the game has its fair share of off-screen shenanigans, it's not nearly as bad as people make it out to be, as it's still one of the more competent Megaman games (It's my personal favorite for the classic series too) and the things people complain about the most are the more readable parts if anything (at least from my experience). There is also something important to note that I think you should've mentioned in your video, it's that sometimes, someone can complain about a game mechanic being frustrating even if they can beat the game in question. MMZ1 is actually a good example for this, the lives system doesn't necessarily make the game harder if anything, it just makes the experience more TEDIOUS, and, well, less fun. Frustration doesn't come merely from demand for skill, that's something I feel like a lot of people fail to point out. Heck, I'd argue the off-screen garbage found in some of MMZ1's levels is more egregious than the lives system if we're talking purely about difficulty of execution.