DTFaux

It's gotten hard to get excited about new tech like this, because it feels like too many tech bros try to sneak the end goals of profit incentives in a Trojan horse. Add to that, it's once again artists (and general creativity) being exploited; the NFT fad and everything that came from that wasnt that long ago.

The side of "fun", "accessibility", or how it'll "PuSH aRt tO NeW heiGhTS!!" are grossly undercut and overshadowed by the amount of opportunists waiting in the wings to cash in, and especially the bigger companies that salivate over the idea of not having to pay for labor any way they can.

If nothing else in this discourse, it's to be aware of who's arguing in good faith Vs. those trying to smooth talk their way to a path of least resistance. The guy with no emotional investment in art or artists trying to argue that "Art is subjective!" and leave the debate at that probably isnt working in anyone's best interest...

I dont hate it, but the initial look does feel a few degrees off. But that's because Nintendo doesnt mess with Mario's 3D model too drastically aside from a new coat of paint every few years.

I'm just relieved Chris Pratt's voice "works", if they really had to rob Charles Martinet of his rightful role (not trying to rag on Chris, obviously).

As someone who low-key likes the concept of Girafarig, I'm here for this [long-overdue] evolution. The design is definitely weird, but doesnt feel any weirder/creepier than having a second, questionably sentient head for a tail.

Heck, it just looks like it's wearing an elaborate mask, really.

Part of me wonders if there'll eventually be a F2P version of TnT that's just for the subscription itself?

So long as the price was right (it's alright, but could be better), fans like me were likely already attracted to the idea of accessing 500+ songs with monthly updates without the $50 entry fee.

Given his work ethic and dedication (which I've respected since Brawl), it cant be understated how invaluable it'll be that he's doing something like this. And for free, no less!

I also love that the comment sections for the 3 videos so far are also substantial and sincere, for the most part. Kinda just nice to see a place not immediately fall towards jokes, memes, game begging, and trolling like a certain bird app.

Despite the surface-level blasphemy of this game, it honestly feels like the least offensive depiction of cults and religion I think I've ever seen in video games.

I was expecting it to be way more cheeky or cynical (as most fiction about cults are), but it plays itself pretty straight in tone and dialogue to an almost nuanced degree. Because the baseline of this game is that "The world is ruled by higher beings powered by faith," the only question to ask is if you want to be a benevolent leader or a rutheless one?

As someone who normally couldnt care less about dating sims, the premise of this one definitely has my attention.

@KeeperBvK It's been almost 6 years since the game released, and it was already a soft promise that I'd give my impressions.

From what I can recall, it wasnt that great of a game. Definitely not broken, but not one I cared to see to the end. Still, gotta give props to them releasing a functionable game at all and sharing free codes to strangers.

I think the risk of spoilers is especially dependent on the community in question. Some are AMAZING at respecting the unspoken, arbitrary window (sometimes for years). Others suck at it to a point where you'd think they were doing it out of spite (especially for media that's facing fan backlash at the time).

Whether or not people adhere to this, I think it's smart for the official Digimon account to get ahead of the nature of the internet by nudging folks towards a middle ground, rather than threaten strikes or takedowns.

Re-watching the first trailer hits me with both a wave of nostalgia (5+ years already??), but also a cool reminder of just how big a deal a system like this still is. Despite the "hybrid" novelty sort of running its course, it still remains as practical as ever, and there's yet to be a competitor that balances the concept as well as the Switch.

Going from Docked-to-Handheld is a given, but Tabletop mode is such an underrated feature. And the versatility of just two Joy-Cons (that can natively attach to the console, no less!) still remains unmatched.

@EarthboundBenjy Honestly, for anyone crazy enough to try and take on Pokemon (and even anyone who's not trying), it cant be understated how important a bit of multimedia can be.

For Pokemon, the games might be the bread and butter, but the anime (and comics) did its share of heavy lifting getting people on board. I'd argue this also went the same for Digimon, Yu-Gi-Oh, Medabots, Bakugan, Beyblade, Yo-Kai Watch, and even non-creature collecting/battle shows. The low barrier of entry gave folks a chance to get invested in their respective worlds, concept, and/or characters.

Now, not every indie dev has the budget or means for a bunch of 11 to 22-minute animated episodes, BUT they should at least consider internet shorts or comics. It's all about getting your voice and identity out there; show that your game with all these characters actually has character.

I dont exactly hate this approach, and I get why Nintendo does it (it ideally keeps people coming back)... but man, Daisy of any character should've been in from the get-go.

I dont think she's missed a party or sports game since Mario Tennis 64, so bringing her late to the party feels more frustrating than exciting.

@victordamazio That's not usually how it works for these kinds of games. The non-optional censorship tends to happen during localization/development, and usually for games where the target audience in another country skews younger (E to Teen); the rare exception being if something takes an M-rated game to AO.

Bayonetta's already an M-rated series where being "sacri-licious" is a major point of it. There's little reason to believe having this option is gonna lead to some reality where Platinum/Nintendo is gonna go all in to protecting puritanical sensibilities in a series where a sexy witch fights angels, demons, and everything in between.

Ironically, what makes this game feel so uncanny is less the cute and cheeky sacrilege, and more the fact that cult stuff hits a bit too close to home in this current climate. I can only imagine where the creator(s) of this game took inspiration from.

That said, the style and tone has me morbidly curious enough to see where the game goes.

I definitely respect the necessity of brevity. I think it's just a personally cynical issue where hearing games be explicitly referred to a brand makes me feel like it'll be an inferior rendition, and ultimately redundant.

But this might be that I was always taught that if you're trying to sell people on things, to never market yourself too hard as an alternative or competitor to an already popular thing, because a lot of people will think, "Why do I need something like X when I already have X?" in a lot of cases.

I feel the direct referrals work best in elaboration, super niche concepts (Souls-like), targeted audiences, or if there's been a years-long gap to a long-dormant playstyle. But otherwise, I feel like mentioning a game by their core mechanics/genres are a better way to pique interest without banking its reception on a familiar brand. Everyone knows "Platform fighter" effectively means "Smash-like", yet avoids the trappings of having to live up to Smash Bros.' expectations.

This is not the best hill to die on, but I've grown to dislike how played up that particular controversy is.

Like, I get the inherent and aesthetical weirdness of it... but I feel the worst part of it was being a cliche and unearned trope, not that an anthropomorphic, talking hedgehog was kissed by a human.

And I say this as someone who also would rather not see Sonic kiss another human in my lifetime.

@Axecon What doesn't help is that Sega has a habit of saying they'll do better with Sonic, only for their latest game to be mediocre at best, and busted at worst.

Generations was arguably the last true win for the guy, and Forces -while not a broken mess like Boom or '06- spread itself too thin to be something more amazing, had they just honed in on one or two of the 3 play styles.

Sega's ironically in the best position with expectations being so low, as they have nowhere to go but up for a lot of us. And I'll even say I'm cautiously optimistic about Frontiers. Just give me a decent playground with good controls to mess around in, and anything else about the game would be a bonus, personally.

@jrt87 I think it's more a matter of these types of games being willing to appeal to certain niches or lean into certain subject matter (and especially representation) that your usual AAA games may not often do in their attempts to appeal to a broad audience... or cynically, not scare away safe money.

I think it's entirely possible to not be able to relate, while respecting that folks like these games for their own reasons, if it harms no one. The Dooms, MKs, and Danganronpas arent going anywhere in light of these.

Wow, that's unfortunate, but I guess not entirely surprising. I definitely would've played more, but the time it took to get into matches just took longer than I would've liked...

I do like the sound of them at least trying to keep the IP alive with new projects, though. I personally wasnt crazy about Bomberman being hard tied to a supporting cast of one-note archetypes, so hopefully they'll scale that aspect back and flesh out the few characters he does interact with.

(Also, more Louie representation, please and thanks!)

Considering the squirrel body blinks and emotes in-game, it's more likely that that's not a suit...

Of course, the obvious question is: What does this mean for the weeks coming? Like, will we get more animals, or will they get more wilder than that? (Robots, slime, mummy, Nintendo costumes, etc.)

@PikaPhantom This is more shouting into the ether, but I swear the term "CalArts" has been one of the most poisonous and derivative words in the animation discourse in the last 10 years.

Both in the fact that it's rarely ever said in a positive context, (its original intention was to lambaste a Disney-like style at the time; coined by the creator of Red & Stimpy), but also because it's far too convenient of a term that often undermines a piece of media's entire art direction (and animation efforts) because of, usually, the use of a mouth shape. /rant

Already saw it and loved it way more than I thought I would (speaking as someone who went into it blind). It was surprisingly grounded, given its fantastical premise. Which was great, as that's a particular niche that's not played with enough in media.

Also, the art direction grew on me so much, I just went and bought the art book the moment the credits hit.

(I also cant get "Nobody Like U" out of my head for the past month...)

@DeathByLasagna If it error'd, you might be able to try again. IIRC, sometimes the page will say that shortly before allowing you to try and add to your cart again.

The Switch is practically the only gaming console I use these days, so I'd definitely jump on another upgrade if it comes to that.

But what would really seal the deal for me is if past games got a nice resolution/frame rate boost as well.

The only reason why this announcement doesnt hurt more for me is because Elden Ring has been scratching that itch pretty well atm (if only it was on Switch...).

Also, conspiracy theories:

#1 - They probably took note of Elden Ring's reception and are doubling back on some design decisions.

#2 - Timing the release around the Switch's 6th year anniversary and mayyyyybe a console revision that lets BotW2 shine in the same way the OLED did for Metroid Dread.

@ramu-chan This is kind of a surprising take between the version. I always assumed most Ouendan die-hards had a fair amount of love for EBA (even if they preferred one over the other).

It's such a shame the series had to live and die with the DS. OSU! keeps the gameplay alive, which I'm grateful for... but what's the point without agents/cheerleaders hyping up ordinary people to overcome over-the-top scenarios?

@victordamazio Agreed. Turning a F2P game into a one-time purchase would not just be good for posterity, but it'd arguably attract a new player base that otherwise passed on (or fell off of) the original model.

This would also instill faith that time put into these games wouldnt just evaporate when the next Nintendo-published mobile game comes around and inevitably shuts down.

A bit more hoop-jumpy than expected to set up, but great once it's actually done.

What would probably make it better is if groups could show at the top, while "all games" could show below. If I'm going through the trouble of organizing things, I'd like to get to my "folders" in as few steps as possible.

I mean, if Konami ain't gonna do it...

At the risk of instigating, it seems especially dubious that the two names they originally left out were two women. Yeah, the guys are "bigger names", but it kinda makes the point of a couple of perpetual problems in Hollywood.

Good that they listened to the fans here, though. How wild would it be if these Sonic movies were the thing to start fixing some of the rougher parts of Hollywood business decisions?

@ArchRex Can definitely agree with the music variety criticism. OST is very good, but for how long the stages can be (and then doing the time trials), one stage song per world just isn't enough.

Time or budget notwithstanding, it'd have been nice if they did like the Sonic games and had an Act 2 or B-Side song to mix things up a bit.

I'm still baffled that they went so far as to have this series playable on Switch, but went the way of the cloud rather than physical or even digitally a la carte...

I'll concede that 2.8 and 3 would've been a big ask, but there's little reason 1.5+2.5 (and DDD) couldn't have had an option for ownership. I wish we could find out what went through SE's mind with this.

Gotta love the marketing speak, making it feel like it's for the culture or the sake of art.

Heaven forbid they do any practical preservation methods like making more of their old games affordably accessible via modern consoles or an online archive.

I'm sure folks were expecting more Shovel Knight, but you know what? A new IP is a smart move!

Get that diverse catalog of characters and worlds going nice and early so you're not sitting on the laurels of one well-earned success. (I say "early", but Shovel Knight is almost 10 years old if you start with the Kickstarter...)

@nhSnork If Nintendo or Hasbro did something you stood against, and then they doubled down on their business decisions saying, "Whatever. You guys are gonna give us money anyway!" I'm sure you'd question your moral/financial support of them for at least a moment, wouldn't you?

Good will isn't some mythical concept, it's Public Relations 101. If it didn't/shouldn't matter, why would any of these companies put up with social media at all?

There is something to say about social media and how the removal of degrees of separation does create a dubious relationship/connection between people and the companies/talent they like, but again, they can't have it both ways. If Troy wanted to continue on with his business venture, he would've been free to do so, just as everyone else is free not to support it.

@SakuraHaruka I think you're misconstruing what "drama" is. Like, I'm not even saying to boycott. Whether you do or don't is all up to your own personal choice. I'm more taking the stance that we should voice our disapproval and wariness early on, because as far as corporate greed goes, silence (and, especially profit) equals approval to a lot of these guys.

And there's already been countless people out there who've calmly and non-dramatically explained why NFTs aren't great for the current moment or the long term (if they gain a foothold). But if you're asking in good faith for someone who can "objectively" explain to you this whole rigamarole, here's a guy who pretty much covers every part of it, including how it may even affect gaming in the future: https://youtu.be/YQ_xWvX1n9g

@SakuraHaruka I see where you're coming from, but "ignoring the problem" doesnt always mean it eventually goes away. There is such a thing as "The Paradox of Tolerance": Where acceptance (or indifference) towards something dubious, just because it doesnt negatively and directly affect you personally, tends to lead things to a point where by the time it finally does, it's too late to do anything about it. That's where we're at with the state of mobile gaming (F2P models, premium currency, loot boxes, low-effort games, etc.). And DLC isnt anyworse thanks to people "losing their minds" over how EA handled that Star Wars Battlefront game.

The reality is that you're predicting this NFT arms race to be a passing fad, so it's not worth worrying about... but this ignores how there is a precedent of big players putting their hands on the scale to get their way.

If there is a future for crypto and NFTs, it sure would be nice if these companies could figure a lot of it out first, rather than shout into the ether trying to sell us on a promise. If you want to abstain from the discourse, by all means. But dont be that person who thinks everyone else is crazy for caring.

@SakuraHaruka That's just whataboutism, though. Sure, there's things worse than NFTs, just as getting punched is worse than getting slapped... But why do we have to put up with getting slapped at all?

Ironically, those worse examples make the case for consumers to be wary of companies going on this gold rush. Those same groups tried to convince us that DLC, DRMs, loot boxes, "Games as a service", etc. were explicitly for our benefit. So why are NFTs suddenly the one area where they deserve the benefit of the doubt?

@Scapetti If it's about re-selling your digital purchases, a digital marketplace that keeps track of your account's purchases and sales could do that easily, and without NFTs. If it's about collecting "a digital version of amiibo", that, ironically, requires a centralized entity to create that value (like Steam and their trading cards), and still wouldn't need NFTs.

Also, saying "Artwork is the simplest to understand" (really patronizing to us artists btw) kinda ignores the fact that 1) Most artists aren't seeing a return on investment trying to get in on NFTs, 2) Has only resulted in a new wave of art theft, and 3) Hasn't created much value on any art that wasn't sold on the initial novelty/investment of NFTs.

As NFTs for art are just digital receipts saying "X paid for this!", that more assigns their value to the purchaser, not the product that was purchased. If the product can be infinitely purchased... where's the value?

"NFTs have a lot of use cases, and we're just scratching the surface," is not a satisfying response to people asking why they should care right now. If there's only investment incentive, but no practical use that isn't made redundant by other means, that's a scam.

@SakuraHaruka But who's to say it wont eventually affect those other aspects? When NFTs are generally solutions in search of problems, who's to say they wont be used as an excuse to "fix" other problems?

Just the other day, Ubisoft was trying to justify their use under the guise of a digital marketplace. But that can already be done without NFTs.

@Scapetti Be careful of stopping at "just a thought." It's far better to think critically.

A bunch of companies being involved doesn't mean it's not a scam. That just means multiple private groups see a money-making opportunity. It's important to ask what that opportunity means for the consumer. If there's no substantial benefit to the consumer-end... it's likely a scam.

@nhSnork Celebs and entertainment talent can't have it both ways. They can stand by their convictions, but they can't, then, get mad when fans and peers don't want anything to do with them over decisions/actions made.

Ironically, you calling it a "fanbrained backlash over the teacup storm of the month" perfectly encapsulates why we keep seeing harebrained decisions like these from celebs and companies: They take calculated risks based on the potential good will lost Vs. money gained.

Troy wasn't ignorant to the discourse. He, like all the other NFT prospectors, thought he could power though the backlash and still get his way. He bet wrong, but at least he's trying to course correct (even if it might just be to save face).

@BloodNinja The venue literally doesn't matter. You and I were giving thoughts and opinions on different sides of the same subject. Whatever politically correct definition you want to use, that's a debate, man...

And I'm trying not to be rude about this, but it's wild to me that you keep trying to pin your inability to argue a point you stood by of your own volition on me as if I don't understand where you're coming from (when I very much do, I just don't agree with it), and then tell me not to take it seriously?? I'd have even begrudgingly accepted "Agree to disagree", but you're really gonna be this petty and childish? I don't think that's very Ninja Approved of you...

@BloodNinja My dude, I've been learning other points of views, but I'm not obliged to be convinced by them if you don't have solid enough data or estimates to back them up. It'd be one thing if you actually had the numbers/data to prove me wrong... but how are you gonna call me lazy for not wanting to look up information that you can't seem to find yourself??

It's a step in the right direction that you have the humility to acknowledge that you lack the means to produce the data relevant to your argument, but then the next logical step is to admit that maybe your stance isn't as grounded as you once thought. Debates are a two-way street.

Trying to put the onus on me to prove you right, and then try and make me look like the inconsiderate one for not accepting your flawed opinions at face value, is [thematically fitting] a rhetorical smoke bomb.

@BloodNinja My bad about the late response. I asked the question about how much money is saved against pirates because YOU raised the point that "DRMs are good for everyone, because companies save money against pirates." That's the metaphorical hill in question.

Not to be too hard on you, but the burden of proof was yours to back up your claim, and if you couldn't provide even a reasonable ballpark estimate to those claims, then your point doesn't stand (cuz I'm not doing your homework for you). But this kinda goes into into the crux of all of this:

The devil doesn't need any more advocates regarding NFTs, because tech and crypto bros have been putting the cart before the horse for the past year at least. So many practical examples listed that NFTs can provide are made redundant by preexisting and/or more efficient means, and every flaw/vulnerability raised seems to be hand-waved (like how art-based NFTs were supposed to help artists, but they've only incentivized art theft, while most artists who went in on good faith have seen negligible return on investment).

When so much push for NFTs is based on profit motive, and vested interest for them is exclusively among companies and early investors... consumers who clearly have little to gain while it's being push on us have every right to be wary, if not annoyed. That's hardly an "extremist" position...

@BloodNinja Just to note: a piracy site wouldn't be the end-all-be-all, because access to APKs, ISOs, Rom, and other files on hand could easily be transferred and distributed via torrents, cloud sites, or just peer to peer (not even considering all the respective sites out there). At best I could get a loose estimate, but... why do I have to crunch numbers if you're the one arguing that DRMs are saving companies and devs from bankruptcy?

And my GOG point is that there's a viable business that can operate and make bank without relying on DRMs. And that devs/publishers have no issue doing business with them despite the lack of DRMs. Your use of revenue numbers doesn't disprove that, and really only makes the case that Steam is -at the very least- the more popular PC platform (like how majority uses Google over Bing, Ask, DuckDuckGo, etc.)

Lastly, if I cared to "do my own research" on loose data that may not even exist, I would've done that by now. But again, I'm not the one making claims that would have to be backed up by numbers. My initial comment to you was about how consumers didn't swoon over DRMs over time, and how it mostly benefits companies; not unlike this NFT gold rush we're seeing now. No one forced you to choose the hill you picked to die on, with all due respect.

@BloodNinja I know the pandemic isnt the sole reason, but my point was that the data you shared wasnt enough to go off of.

How much Denuvo and Steam charge does give some perspective on how much companies are willing to pay, but how much they're saving against piracy per their investment eventually becomes nebulous the further you get away from the investment cost.

And a counterargument to this is that GOG sells games ranging from AAA to indie (games you can also find on Steam), and their entire gimmick is being DRM-free.

@BloodNinja OK, but what I was asking was if there was proof of how much companies were saving thanks to DRMs.

Gaming booming due to the pandemic (per your quote) could equally be attributed to people being inclined to pay for products, regardless, than their inability to pirate. Any inference beyond what's being presented is just appealing to one's confirmation bias.

And this ignores that it's hard to measure just how many folks are pirating to begin with.

@BloodNinja I get the argument that it adds an extra layer of defense against piracy, but has there been much proof of how much money it's actually saved companies and studios?

Anyone who cares to jump through the hoops to consume paid media for free (and/or lacks the funds to begin with) is still doing it, while everyone willing to pay already do.

@BloodNinja To be fair with DRMs, consumers didnt learn to love them, because they still dont provide any substantial benefits to the consumer (it's almost exclusively beneficial to businesses). They only became less of a problem because internet access has improved. But when you have no internet, you're out of luck.

The internet, on the other hand, has shown its use over time. But it also wasnt "everyone" who doubted it. It stuck pretty well by the time it hit mainstream.

NFTs feel more like DRMs, where companies are hoping we get worn down by their push and just accept things. But it's having trouble sticking because Crypto bros and the like already gave the game away. So now we're all just tired of hearing about it until it can actually prove its use.