NedBundy

@somebread .....he said "this kind of stuff" referring to the content the game itself is referencing. The kind of stuff he got deplatformed for is infinitely worse than gay frogs, so conflating the two is stupid. Ranting about gay frogs for clicks doesn't get you deplatformed. Inciting harassment and death threats does.

This would be a hell of a lot less confusing if you just stopped interjecting between the responses of two people who aren't you. Since you're obviously incapable of doing that this interaction is over.

@somebread you realize that's what I said, right? That his denial of those events is the kind of stuff that he was banned for? We're agreeing, here. Nobody cared when he was just a loud mouth whacko, not until it crossed into slander and targeted harassment that lead to death threats. He would still have a platform if he was ranting about gay frogs.

Do me a favour, don't speak for other people. You're not good at it. Let them reply to what's obviously directed at them specifically.

@CactusMan there are games on there that are far more 'insulting', and I use that term lightly. It's okay to kill hookers in GTA but this is a step too far for the eshop?

'Borderline insulting' means 'barely insulting' btw. What standard should we go by, "Things that offend CactusMan"? I get the impression that would be a long list of games.

@antdickens he didn't get banned "for this kind of stuff". Nobody except whackos and people who thought Alex Jones was crazy but entertaining in his stupidity cared about him when he was saying blatantly insane stuff like this. He got banned when he started denying events like Sandy Hook, calling the parents crisis actors and inviting litigation.

He didn't get deplatformed for simply saying dumb things that are easily lampooned and satirized, he got deplatformed because he was pushing actually dangerous ideas and slandering people who had gone through a tragedy. Don't trivialize that by pretending enough people were offended by gay frogs that he lost his platform. Nobody cared.

@Heavyarms55 dark humour has existed forever, same with parody and satire. This isn't a microcosm of society, and objecting to something that's blatantly in poor taste doesn't make you any more empathetic. Before this current pandemic there were plenty of others in human history, plus many games/movies/books about viruses and pandemics, so I'm really curious as to what arbitrary amount of time between atrocities you think is necessary to satirize something.

By all means, find it in poor taste, but give me a break.

@antdickens just because it bothers you doesn't mean it's unacceptable in general. This could go in circles for days, people are that eager to ignore things like context and intent.

@somebread of course it was, but referencing a meme isn't the same thing as endorsing it as a legitimate scientific theory lol.

When people think satire and parody are the same things as endorsing the subject matter itself you know they're not playing with a full deck. It's a parody of Alex Jones, not some edgy non sequitur about gay people.

@-wc- depends on what you're offended by. Genocide is offensive. Child exploitation is offensive. I've never heard anyone suggest that not getting offended by dumb jokes, and in this case blatant satire, means they're above being offended by anything.

@JayJ you missed my point entirely. No one's asking you to sing praises for anything, there's just a massive difference between something not being for you and something being arbitrary or poorly planned out. One is a genuine opinion, the other is you pretending the game isn't meticulously designed around its scoring mechanic. That's pretty different. It's like saying a game has bad controls versus just being bad at controlling it.

I dunno, I just see the merit in lots of things that don't click for me, seems reasonable. Maybe shmups just aren't for you outside of a few instances, but it'd be like me saying a football game has too much running around. Maybe I just don't like football.

@nessisonett I hear you. I'm so done with that way of thinking. Nobody cares if you approve of anything that doesn't require your approval to begin with. If you're against drugs don't do them. If you're against homosexuality then turn off Liberace, I don't know.

@BeautyandtheBeer to me this isn't something to agree to disagree on, because that would imply that your not being "okay" with recreational use is relevant to anything other than whether or not you partake. Minding your business is agreeing to disagree, telling someone you would prefer if they were criminalized for doing something you don't approve of isn't agreeing to disagree, it's saying that if things were your way it would suck for a lot of people and you're fine with that because reasons.

When it comes to recreational marijuana use we're well past the point where we can pretend that all takes are valid. They're not, except to the extent in which you're speaking for yourself. Criminalizing ruins lives and doesn't decrease use.

@JayJ you not liking it is a valid take but saying it's clearly an unnecessary feature isn't. Intricate scoring systems have been part of the genre for more than 2 decades now, and are pretty much a staple of all of Cave's games, so Ikaruga having one isn't gimmicky or unnecessary. I'm not trying to be hostile or rude, but there's a world of difference between you simply not liking something and it being bad or arbitrary.

Scoring systems are what distinguish shmups from others, besides art style. These are hallmarks of the genre, games like Battle Garegga or Espgaluda 2 make the scoring system in Ikaruga seem like pre-school since you're only concerned with matching colors.

@JayJ I like to consider myself decent at shmups but Ikaruga is brutal at times.

@masterLEON HCG101 is one of the best resources on the net. I wish their old site was still accessible though, they had a lot of really deep game coverage.

@JayJ it's definitely chaotic, but definitely not a mess. All of Cave's games have great backgrounds and sprite work, and they don't lose anything by having tons of enemies and bullets. I can see why it would be a lot to handle, but shmups are about getting into 'the zone' where you're perceiving everything instantaneously and reacting to it.

That said another common criticism is that bullet hells are difficult. I've always found them to be way easier than games like Raiden or Gradius where your hit box is massive, bullets are tiny and it's incredibly easy to get boxed in with no way out. Bullet hells are a lot more forgiving imo.

The way people are justifying their enjoyment of the game is pretty telling. It's not that they enjoy a game despite its flaws or public perception, it's that everyone else who disagrees with them is blinded by nostalgia, emotion, or is wearing rose coloured glasses. Nothing says "I'm a condescending douche" quite like that.

People only resort to arguments like that when they experience the cognitive dissonance of enjoying something other people don't. At that point you're not defending the game, you're pathetically trying to justify your own taste. If you enjoy the game, warts and all, good for you. You shouldn't feel the need to defend it.

@Donutman the irony is literally no one would be complaining if it was the same game with better visuals. It's like you picked one aspect of the review to harp on, ignored the rest of the criticism, based on nothing but the premise that anyone who disagrees with you put less thought into their opinion or just has rose coloured glasses on. Such a frustrating and arrogant sentiment, the vast, vast majority of people should speak of their own experiences and leave the dumb speculation at the door.

@IronMan30 no offense, but that's pretty arrogant. Just because you make a criticism about someone doesn't mean they have to acknowledge it as correct or admit anything, especially if they disagree with your assertion. The reviewer's response to you was civil, and didn't betray any kind of emotion that you're trying to protect.

You guys disagree. That doesn't mean one of you is wrong and the other is right, and it doesn't mean that whatever reason you to find to discredit a review is valid or worthy of consideration. If I said you took this review personally and were responding purely from emotion would you admit that I have a point, or would you tell me I have no idea what I'm talking about? You'd pick the latter, so why should anyone else 'admit' anything to you?

At the end of the day if you're telling someone who wrote a review that they're biased you're just looking for an argument, because that's implied by the format.