*Amendments* * I unfairly threw Ratatoskr under the bus. I included him here because that video embodies a review of a game that only talks about the negative aspects really succinctly. But there is a difference between his work and the other critics I talk about. Although I dislike that video because I'm more interested in his whole opinion than the 0.2%, I don't think he's guilty of the same style of critique that I'm really addressing here. I should have made a clearer distinction. He's been cut from the intro. His thumbnails show up a couple times in the vid but please know I'm not equating him with the other people I'm talking about. Sorry, Ratatoskr. * Seems like I fell into the very common trap of calling Nietzsche a nihilist. He's a more complex guy than that and my interpretation of his work was shallow. My interpretation in the video still stands as an analogy to the game and it's still important to show Feeble's misquotation and lack of sources. Even if my interpretation was flawed, I argue that it's still stronger and better researched than Feeble's one. But please do dig into Nietzsche's work yourself because I don't represent his ideas super well here. Sorry, Nietzsche. *Death of the Author - A commenter correctly pointed out that Death of the Author is not concerned with the theory that the author has intended you to do whatever you want. The core of the idea is that the intention of the author is irrelevant. It's not their intention anymore. It doesn't matter what they intend. I've sort of conflated both authorial intent and death of the author in the point I make. The point still stands that you can play the game however you want, even if it goes against what you may perceive as developer intent. *Please don't use this video as justification to say git gud or skill issue. As I've said a couple times, I don't like that discourse. I say it to Joe and Feeble in respect to their critiques as a bit of a snarky dig but I don't condone the kind of argument that waves away a person's opinions with an accusation that they are bad at the game. I think Joe reacted badly to those comments but I still don't condone the use of them. It's not about skill it's about mindset. But even so, it's not okay to say that it is someone's "fault" for not liking the game. People are allowed to dislike things in the same way you are allowed to like things. You don't need to convince them they're wrong. That's not what this video is about. *On the great rune thing. Really surprised that so many people have taken issue with it because I thought it was a minor point. I realise now that it's sandwiched between two much bigger arguments which makes it seem like I'm equating it to be the same. It's not. It was a bridge between arguments and not the argument itself. I used it as an example to show that sometimes subjectivity isn't implied, objectivity is, because Joseph says "objectively bugged". My argument was that it can't be that either the rune is objectively bugged or the text is wrong. If it's either or, then neither is objective, because we don't know which is which. I'm sure it's Joe being hyperbolic but words are important. Regardless, I spent too much time on it because I thought it was funny how mad Joe was about it years after he talked about it in the base game review. The text is definitely misleading. My argument wasn't that Joe is silly because the system is actually clear. Regardless, it's unimportant to my overall argument and I'm happy to take the L on it. Honestly, if I had another edit, I'd cut it out because it distracts from the larger points I'm making. Important to note! Obviously not all the reviews/critiques of this game are negative. Responses are overwhelmingly positive from mainstream video game journalists. I don't think this game is an underrated gem or anything. The base game won Game of the Year. It's clearly a very successful and acclaimed series of games and contrarian discussion is healthy and necessary. I'm talking here about a very specific form of critique that is very very common in the souls community in particular, and why I don't like that form of critique. You're allowed to dislike it. You're allowed to think it is a flawed masterpiece. I just want to hear more about the "masterpiece" and less about the "flawed". When I discuss opinions on the game and make claims that they are "wrong", I am addressing interpretations of developer intent that I believe don't hold up well under scrutiny. Even so, when I say something is "wrong", and I am talking about an interpretation, that is my opinion. Subjectivity is implied ;) Keep the discussion civil. I don't mean ill will to the people I talk about in this video even if I am quite harsh and snarky throughout. This is a discussion of art and ideas. It's also a genuine plea for self-reflection. This isn't a take-down. It isn't content cop. You're allowed to not like things. I'm allowed to like things. Let's be cool about it. We are currently accepting new members to join the Cult of Fromsoft. Praise be, Surrogate-All-Father Miyazaki. He who satisfies our victim complex Gred
Just finished the intro, and saw this comment... You should watch Noah Caldwell-gervais videos on Elden Ring if you wanna hear about the masterpiece parts of the "flawed masterpiece".
@@GredGlintstone I was also going to mention Noah Caldwell-Gervais. There is also a part of his recent Elden Ring video in which he addresses negative comments, which you may find pertinent.
@@GredGlintstonei second Noah’s content. It’s some really great stuff. Very personal, very balanced. You won’t be questioning how he actually feels about the thing by the end.
Besides the fact it’s a bold-faced lie (he literally changed his Elden ring base game opinion) it’s also just sad. Does he do absolutely no growing as a person or critic? My opinions on stuff I like and dislike and “critique”(lmao) change every day. Feeble is just embarrassing.
@@liquidreality472 If you need proof that most people are easily manipulated by just knowing how to present your opinion in a confident manner, you can take Joseph Anderson as the biggest example
Something not mentioned is that even outside of beating the Putrescent Knught rewarding you with the Trina questline/moment, you literally get a Remembrance for a unique boss weapon like every other main boss.
@@harkaranbrar2342explain the thought process behind reading a comment that explicitly states "even OUTSIDE of st . Trina quest you still get such and such " And still thinking the discussion is about st . Trina's quest . 😂
I like how you emphasized that simple mechanics doesn't mean boring. Sekiro got Game of the Year but in my opinion it's Game of the Decade. That parry is so satisfying. And yet if you reduce it, it's really just "press parry at the right time". Simple but elegant.
I got an even deeper appreciation for the combat of Sekiro after installing some super boss mods like the elden arts mod. I highly recommend downloading some of you haven't.
Reminds me of the "Stand still and let thing resolve" joke/meme/mockery from the FF14 community. When you think about ti life is about standing still and letting thing resolve.
“In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face, is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so.” Such a good quote it’s still accurate in this current age.
@@aidans1188 idk critics risk a lot I think, generally speaking. And that line also discounts critique as a form of art which I’m also not comfortable with.
@@MoreLoreThenThereSeemsa work of art, imo, is a creation made by a talented person (or group of people) in a field such as writing, painting, architecture, videogames, etc that shows said person's view or philosophy on the world and life that can be understood in isolation from other forms of human expression. There can be "bad art" as it can lack technical expertise, but authentic art cannot be "lazy" or "half-hearted" because it should represent the honest efforts of the author. A critique of art cannot be understood in isolation because it is a commentary on someone else's work, and thus its entire existence depends on that.
I really appreciate the point being made here. Even given the title of the video, I still partially expected a "this person disagreed with my take on a game, and therefore: me angry" video. I was truly surprised by the level of detail, research, and understanding regarding the material being spoken about. You aren't disagreeing with people's opinions, you are disagreeing with the way the opinions are stated and their overall implications. It isn't often you see something of this quality on UA-cam. Subscribed.
Feeble literally says in that Bloodborne video that playing the game started to feel like a job and I was like "dude, aren't you getting paid to play this?". It is your job.
It's also sad when people show their feet on webcam purely for a job, without appreciating the artistic nuance and the human implications of the scenario.
Brief comment on the Sisyphus point brought up around 1 hour in, i dont believe sisyphus would be happy because of the merit of his work, and his ability to perfect/improve pushing the boulder eternally. His happiness derives from the fact that he could stop at any time, but that would let the Gods win. He has deadlocked himself to an eternity of monotony and repetition all on his own. As long as sisyphus rolls the boulder, the gods are wrong, and that means he wins. The second he gives up, they win. Sisyphus enables his own hell, and he is content with that.
Hey about sisyphus, while i do agree that Camus brings up the concept of "revolt" a lot, the point Camus makes isn't that Sisyphus is happy because he could stop at any time, it's not a revolt against the gods that casted him in this hell. It's a revolt against the absurdity of existence itself. So Sisyphus doesn't become happy throught conflict and confrontation, he becomes happy through creativity ; by finding meaning where there is none and for exemple by "leaving a trace" behind the boulder he pushes, each time the trace is different. Then, he transcend his condition, he isn't bound by the punishment of the gods, he doesn't create in spite of them.
@@cosimomedicis8094 Yes, this is more accurate. There is no purpose to his struggle and he's forced to repeat it forever. It's a living hell unless Sisyphus can learn to embrace the absurdity of his situation and find happiness anyway.
This perspective resonates with me so well. When I first gained... self autonomy? Like my life isnt just me on autopilot, I fell into despair, realizing were just tiny flesh bags living on a rock in the middle of nowhere. No meaning has value and everything is meaningless. Yatta Yatta Yatta. Until last year I decided to change this nihilistic viewpoint as its toxic and not helping at all. I've now come to the conclusion, Life may be meaningless, but how would I know if I didn't look for it? Who am I to determine the value of meanings and if there is an actual meaning? If death is the inevitable truth, then life is a powerful protest. To live despite its purposelessness, isn't that admirable?
Both Sekiro and Elden Ring literally reinvented the genres and were completely different in design from the games that preceded them, suggesting they're coasting by is honestly baffling.
@@DelgadoKenway The biggest downgrade in quality since DS2 won GOTY over the highly anticipated sequel to the 2018 GOTY. That's not to say winning GOTY is the end-all be-all, there are duds, like TLOU 2 beating DOOM: ETERNAL, Ghost of Tsushima, and Hades, but I think it's still pretty telling of ER's quality.
Please stop posting everywhere about it! Our community of human man game players is already getting too popular & I don't want the next Olive Garden game to flatten the human man game mechanics like Skyrim or turn into super-soldier play. Don't you remember when we started all the games naked + helpless??? I miss the good old days when human man games were niche + old school.
My favorite example of Feeble King’s hubris is when he declares that he knows exactly what experience Fromsoft wanted us to have, when he doesn’t even know how Fromsoft intended you to deal with the Putrescent Knight’s grounded flame hitbox.
One of the things that bothers me the most about the stupid arguments of that Feeble King guy is that he insists that his way of playing is the correct and only valid way and that using any tool that the game gives you is not valid
My favorite example of FK Hubris is to the end of his first critique when he said that if you defend these bosses is probably because you use summons, therefore your opinion isn´t valid.
I argued with feedle king once when elden ring originally released. One of the worst people ive ever spoken with about it, youtuber or otherwise. I stuck to discussion about the game. I pointed out that he was blatantly contradicting himself and not making sense. I simply asked him to make sense. He called me stupid, told me i lacked a high school education, blocked me from speaking on his channel and then deleted all his replies where he lost composure because he didnt have any explanation for the nonsense he was saying about the game. All the replies he made where he completely abandoned any semblence of discussion and devolved into childish insults were removed. But the fromsoft fans are toxic... 🤦 I wont ever bother listening to what he has to say again. Youve given him more credit than he deserves by calling what he made a review or calling him a reviewer.
Hey I’ve read the affairs between you & him, he even did that to me, he deleted my replies to him where I ratioed him so hard, I don’t even get hostile at all, I like to keep it very respectful while being as impartial as I can, but he kept throwing ad-hominems at me all the time & hasn’t discussed my points at all. He’s just a toxic person with an inflated ego. I thank you for your time in trying to deconstructing these “critics.”
@@SpoonyBard88 Someone who likes to lie and contradict himself constantly. And no, this is no ad hominem, he actually says one thing, then changes his mind and then claims to have never said the first thing and that he never changes his mind.
The “Gank Boss” at the end of the shadow of the erdtree DLC gives you the option to summon in the NPC’s you’ve befriended along the way. Which NPC’s you summon also change depending on how you interacted with the NPC’s in the world up until that point. Narratively this is the best NPC fight I think FromSoftware has ever done, and to reduce it to “just another gank fight” is both inaccurate because it doesn’t have to be 1 vs 3, but also ignores narratively what makes the fight so impactful
@@jojameson5264 by this same logic, it matters less because you can fail npc quests. 2 of 5 won’t even show up if you don’t finish their quests. And neither of the summonable characters get their quests broken by fuckin walking somewhere.
You can literally turn that fight into a 5v5 if you use the Jolan and Anna ashes, by doing that you can also turn the fight into a 5v2 "reverse gank" if you just don't do any of the npc quests.
Thank you for the video, I am pretty much in full agreement! Initially I even groaned at the idea of watching a 2 hour video seemingly about Elden Ring DLC critique because I expected this to be exactly the type of video you're criticising, lol! Thankfully I watched it and I'm very happy for it, since it resonated with thoughts I've had about this for a while. Game critique of popular games has been so deeply poisoned on the internet that I am usually just indisposed to even engage with it, which is a terrible shame since I think there are so many interesting ideas we could be discussing about those games instead of what we usually get with those videos.
I cannot tell you how unbelievably gratifying it is to finally hear so many of the frustrations I’ve felt this year following SoTE’s release put into words so succinctly. Fromsoftware is a beacon, they deserve better from their “critics”.
I'm grateful for this video. The pseudo-intellectual multi-hour UA-cam review-as-essay has been the worst trend in games criticism. It's the same material as we've always had, just stretched over hours and presented as well thought out by merit of being long. The irony of praising a video over 2 hours long isn't lost on me. Also the Miyazaki misquote (fauxquote?) has annoyed me for years and I'm very glad you took the time to call it as such.
Also you're wrong about Nietszche, he wasn't a nihilist, he hated nihilism, his great life-long project was articulating the catastrophe that was nihilism in 19th Century Europe. He believed profoundly that life was and is meaningful, and that we have almost a moral duty to ourselves to be true to ourselves, so that our loves could be meaningful. Your whole idea about him believing life was innately meaningless and that it becomes meaningful in self-overcoming is totally anathema, really, to what nietszche articulated throughout his works. I recommend reading anything from his middle period, eg the gay science, to get a better idea of what he really believed. You're sort of correct when you say that Nietszche said that suffering creates meaning, but what he tended to say was actually that it made us more *interesting*. Nietszche believed that self-inflicted suffering was a major phase in the history of our psychological development, and associated it with Christianity. The geneaology of morality expounds on this. Fun video, I'm glad you made it, it certainly made my chores more enjoyable. Sorry to jump down your throat, but i gotta protect my dude against misrepresentation.
It seems you're absolutely correct and I've fallen prey to what looks like a pretty common misconception about the man. I was basing my argument on an interpretation that is very likely flawed. That being said, I still think my point in this section stands because: a) Feeble still misquoted the man and didn't provide his sources. b) My interpretation (while shallow and likely inaccurate to Nietzsche's authorial intent) is still a good analogy for the game. I do appreciate you bringing it to my attention. I'll do more reading on Nietzsche. He's an interesting dude.
@migaeldewet6074 Well, it isn't if you refuse to try out a single weapon from the dlc, and it's useless to use it for runes since he claims he has already hit the soft caps for his stats(not true lol)
Regarding that bit at the end where you show that extremely rude response Joseph makes to that fan, I find it very concerning that at least 184 people looked at that and said "Yeah, that's a response I like, better go give it positive feedback."
@@chaoticgoodcreations947 with how his reddit is, i can say with confidence that they werent. most of them display actual toxic positivity about joeseph anderson. if the witcher 3 video never comes out, they will still be waiting in bated breathe for it.
I wonder if you know "Beginners Guide". If not then maybe playing it (or watching it, even on Joseph Anderson second channel) could actually help you understand the issue. Some "support" can be rude if person didn't ask for it, even worse when specifically said they don't want it - and it isn't new trope.
"Love isn't about ignoring something's faults, it's about loving it in spite of them." This is why Drakengard is one of my favorite games. Sure it's monotonous and grindy and tonally hostile in every aspect. But I still love it. Hell, I love it FOR that. It is unapologetically itself, it is deranged and unhinged and wondrous for it.
As a fan of Joseph's videos, I thought I was going to disagree with a lot of the points from this video because I usually agree with him, but I was surprised to get a better understanding of Miyazaki's intent for the Souls series and see how so many UA-camrs misconstrue that design as just a way to demonstrate their own skills, that if they die, that's a failure on the game's part. Viewing the games as wanting the player to experiment with different playstyles because their first option may not work all the time makes a lot of sense and I'm surprised that Matthew's misinterpretation of that design influenced so many people, even many channels that I like. I haven't seen Joe's video on Elden Ring because I haven't played the game yet (it sounds like a game I would absolutely love to play but there are so many games these days and I'm slowly appreciating older games from my backlog for now), but from what I hear, it's the kind of critique video that gives a disclaimer that it's his favorite game of all time, but then he spends hours focusing on negatives of the game. I don't think this style of video is bad entirely, I love playing games that stay in my mind so much that I have to seek every piece of information I can find on it (Dark Souls, The Last of Us, PT, Undertale, The Beginner's Guide, Hollow Knight, Celeste, Outer Wilds, etc etc), even including what other people dislike about it, but if that kind of video is the first experience someone has with a game, I can definitely see it negatively impacting their own impression of the game before they've even played it, which sucks for everyone in that situation; the person viewing, the uploader who thought he was doing a service for his favorite game, and the developers of the game because now they lost a potential player. I can definitely understand the mindset behind it, "I love a game so much that I'm comfortable enough to deconstruct it and criticize it", but I wish videos gushing about good games trended more or played a bigger part in these critique videos. Maybe from their perspective, they wrote positive comments in their scripts but edited them out because it made the flow of the video weird. Maybe they know why they love a game and they feel like others feel that same way too so they don't feel it's necessary to bring up the positives. Maybe they read a negative comment on one of their last videos that stayed in their mind for so long they felt they needed to respond to it in a grand comprehensive way, when the commenter probably didn't think about it anymore after positing it. Most of these channels definitely want to be game designers, but hell, I would love to be a game designer too, so I can't fault them for thinking this will help them get to that point. To give Joseph credit, he makes a big deal at the start of most of his videos that if you haven't played the game yet, stop the video now and do that as soon as you can, even giving some games multiple warnings since he knows there will be people that ignore that first warning but the game is really worth playing. Those disclaimers made me try so many different games that I would end up loving, so I really appreciate that. I really agree that this style of video is becoming way overplayed now. For me it was new, interesting, and thought provoking when Matthew Matosis started it over decade ago, but now that there are hundreds of channels copying that style, either doing it worse or being far too negative, and that it's evolved over the years from 20-40 minute videos into 10+ hour videos, I've just started ignoring them more and more when they show up in my feed. A lot of these creators have the idea that if they keep adding to the length of the video, the more impressive it would look to their audience, but it just makes me think that the video will be bloated with unrelated side tangents or just be a complete retelling of the story. The Witcher 3 video has been Joseph's white whale for years, but I don't really care about The Witcher series, and I suspect that Joe stopped caring for the series too. At least, I hope he has. I don't want Joe to spend years on a project all about criticizing a 10 year old game that hundreds of other UA-camrs have already made multi-hour long critiques about. I'd rather watch him stream games for fun like Paper Mario or Kingdom Hearts or whatever other weeb games his audiences recommends him. I might have gotten tired of the essays, but his streams are always a lot of fun, and I think he knows that too considering he's only uploaded 3 videos on his main channel in the past four years, deleting his Patreon a few years back as well. I could argue that you were a bit too harsh on him or other UA-camrs that make these style of videos (like Feeble, I don't know him but I don't want to assume he's a bad guy because I watched one video showing where he was wrong), we all make mistakes, we're all learning what works and what doesn't on UA-cam together, these creators aren't just single-minded video essay machines, etc, but on the other hand, this is giving these critique channels a taste of what they usually do to games, unrelentless criticism for art that was just intending to entertain. Maybe/hopefully this video will influence UA-camrs to focus on more positive and fun projects, rather than concentrating negativity. It must be weird of me to leave a such an extensive comment on a review of a review of a review of a game I don't know much about, but the video isn't really about Elden Ring, it's about critique videos that I've watched hundreds of before, so I was invested the whole way through. Sorry for the long stream of random thoughts. I thought this comment was going to be a paragraph long but I just kept writing.
Appreciate the thoughtful comment. I was definitely harsh and I don't think they're bad guys. I just don't like what they're doing. Really happy you approached it with an open mind as a Joe fan.
Whenever i think of Joseph Anderson responding to criticism, i remember how DangitJM made a fairly tame response to Joe's comments about unfair boss design of Margit, and Joe commented in the video before even watching; a bunch of arguments that werent being made, and then ended up saying "well i guess i just dont have a very good build" as a response in the comment chain to people summarizing the video as a response to the comment, as if that is somehow Fromsoftware's fault. Then i watched his Lies of P review where he praised the game for "listening to its fans" when they made a bunch of changes, then childishly said that thats how he knows it wasnt made by Fromsoftware, and i was like "oh. thats what this video is going to be about" and yeah
Omg I saw that comment and almost brought it up. That idea of "I haven't watched this yet but this is what I think it's about" is so weird. Just watch it lol. I hope this isn't how he plays games.
@@GredGlintstone some joe lore that i think humanizes him more in my eyes is how he has talked on his stream about how him and a bunch of other unpublished/selfpublished authors would write stories and post them to places like reddit to try and get feedback from each other. i think that thats how he's approaching his "critiques" and its very improv classroom, where you and your peers are trying to make a good joke to use at a standup setting or when writing for a sketch comedy group. There are so many differences between that and what he's doing from the fact that peer to peer critique is more personal and private and helps mainly because after you build some good rapport with your peers, they try to understand and work with you rather than just say what they dont like about your set.
@@AnInvalidEgg 100%, "Joe" very much sees saying that sort of stuff in that way as something very casual and very unproblematic, maybe due to how he used to talk a lot on writing forums like you said, and that kind of shaping how he goes about his casual criticisms on things.
I heard, so take it with a grain of salt, that he played Armored Core and absolutely refused to change his build. You know in the game where that is the whole appeal. I do like his reviews generally, but some of his opinions seem really strange, like just criticism for the sake of criticism. I remember his Bloodborne review being more criticized than his reviews are now.
@@Romapolitan He did, and he did lol, I fucking love armored core and that really killed me whilst I watched him play it lol. It's just not his sort of game at all really, I think he may have said that whilst playing but I can't quite remember. His perspective on it is that if it's so easy to switch and stumble into what works and what doesn't, and there are some weapons which are so much more viable than others to the extent it can trivialize the game, he'd rather just have the game give him a balanced experience in which he doesn't need to play a balancing game of a build being useable, and it being too good that the game becomes trivial, and that as that isn't the case and the customization isn't for him, that he'll just go with the first things he finds which work better than what he was using. He used dual Zimms lol.
@@MoreLoreThenThereSeems another British fellow who uses it for good is hbomber guy but he is a rare uploader. But a good one. Like the one time he made a whole channel or two built on stealing others work get thanos snapped. One of them faked their death and created a thirst account under a new name.
@@christianlangdon3766 Hbomb doesn't sound posh, if anything because he screams so much it kinda loses the poshness. Abigail from Philosophy Tube on the other hand... wow, NOW we're talking.
I’d rather have a British or an Aussie UA-camr narrate every video instead of hearing another guy from the Midwest with a nasally voice that you have to get used to after watching a WhiteLight video lol
I’m a huge Joseph Anderson fan (admittedly more his streams than his critiques) so I appreciate you giving all this feedback. At this point I’ve heard ‘subjective’ misused so much that I’ve gradually lost track of the meaning myself. I also really enjoyed your point about gamers being so focused on the reward rather than the experience with visuals, sound and vibes. I admit I do like games being replayable once the first experience wears off, but FromSoft have always been good at finding a balance of both.
Yeah also loopine has a video saying critique’s deserve criticism to keep them in check, he was saying that because he was puzzled as to why Joseph Anderson gets a pass saying shit like “fromsoft have fell on their heads” and that they don’t know how to make bosses anymore, unfortunately I can’t remember the video so I can’t link it
Your conversation about rewards was very interesting. One review of SotE I watched was from a smaller creator, I can't remember their name, but I do remember some of their comments in regard to complaints about areas like Cerulean Coast and Charo's Hidden Grave. They suggested that we, as players familiar with open world games, often interpret emptier areas as automatically being 'bad'. We're used to the general norm of open worlds being cluttered and constantly giving us things to do and find, that an area deciding to use open space in a possibly more poignant sense registers as poorly made or having nothing to find. It really struck a chord with me, as has your video. I've been an ardent defender of the Consecrated Snowfield for this very reason. Sometimes it's just the atmosphere, the immersion of a wide-open yet well-hidden space that acts as its own reward. I think it's fine to critique the more tangible rewards, of course. But I also think sometimes it's better to ask 'what is this area trying to do/make me feel?' as opposed to 'what does this area have that can personally benefit me?'
Love how Miyazaki inherits Team Ico games' DNA and preserve these beautiful open spaces tradition in Elden Ring. Now while that's all well and good, I still wish riding Torrent is more than just a "hold left stick" affair. These areas works much better when the traversal mechanic is also engaging, such as riding Agro in Shadow of the Colossus or the funky walking mechanic in Death Stranding. Big open spaces _feels empty_ mostly because you can't really do much of anything in it. This is why I despise modern Assassin's Creed where traversal is mind-numbing, as opposed to the older games where you still have to activate neurons in your brain to navigate through the world.
You could look at this the opposite way. "What do I gain from spending an hour riding through a nearly empty area with reused enemies I don't get from fighting those same enemies else where already?" Games are about the gameplay and one of the biggest complaints about Elden ring is how empty or effectively empty the open world is. You just run past enemies to get to locations, so the DLC repeating it isn't what people were looking for. Especially not from a hidden area or multiple hidden areas reusing the same assets as is the case with the fingers. And while you may enjoy the scenary, there are players like myself who really wanted to see what the finger areas were about when we see them in the distance and we got nothing when we arrived there. There was nothing to do but run past enemies and bone out with the horn. But we didn't know that so we still spent time investigating. And then had to do it a second time. You can say it made you feel something but feelings are so subjective you can't lean into them as a reason for content like this to be in the game. If people say "I don't want to eat more pasta" you can't say "but this pasta will make you feel something" and expect them to be happy when you shove more pasta in front of them. The DLC and base game suffer massively from the side of open areas and no meaningful way to engage with them. So making hard to reach secret areas double down on that thing was objectively a bad idea. If your player base complains about it and you repeat it several more times in something they're paying more for, you should expect them to be pissed off they didn't listen to your feedback.
@@FleshCloud-ey5ro you are also projecting your own feelings onto the game. Conversation is driven by feelings, there's no need to use "objective" jargon.
Thank god finally someone speaks about the shit of online """"critics"""" thinking they know how an artpiece would be better. Yes, artist, allow me- internet rando No.2000- to tell YOU how YOUR art can be best without bothering to know or care about what YOUR intention with it was, I am very smart. And then a bunch of people who have never engaged with the artpiece parrot the points around and it makes talking about the artpiece impossible because how DARE you not mention Literally Every Single Flaw It Has Ever while making a twitter post abt how much you like the design of a character or something like that. Bad Faith Criticism has made fandoms 300 times more toxic because people INSIST that you HAVE to be negative to be "fair" about the artpiece, and as such it creates a hostile environment when ppl perma-fight over their opinions because not doing so risks an idea spreading so far that it can actually lead to harassment and hate to the artists. Cartoon fandoms have this massive issue bc the amount of UA-cam video essays that actually give a fuck about the artistry of animation besides whatever Disney and Dreamworks movie is out are actually very slim. Entire creators have had to delete their social media and not interact with fans anymore bc of genuine hate because doing an artpiece that isn't perfect is now some sort of sin, is infuriating.
There are a ton of "very serious game critics" who are constantly bemoaning the inflammatory discussion surrounding their writing, but nearly without exception the uproar is invited because their work is actually the lowest rung of possible critique (essentially a product review). The problem they seem incapable of diagnosing, is that no matter how flowery your prose is, or how close to the 6 hour mark you get, that doesn't mean the actual content of the writing is anything other than a rather simple 'value judgement' (used in the critical definition, not the moral definition). So the problem becomes that the most interesting thing you can say in response to a video like Joseph Anderson, or Ratatoskr (who despite your pinned comment, is guilty of this type of discourse) is "I think your value judgement is wrong". This is why so many of these types of works have entire sections addressing the audience with: "you're allowed to disagree, but please behave". Or in the latter's case "I'll probably piss you off, so be sure to dislike this video and argue in the comments". These disclaimers can't generate a theoretical "ideal discussion" around their "critique" because the critic himself has failed to write anything that has a primary quality more complex than "this is good or bad imo"-- and thus the response can only be "thank you for agreeing with me," or "nuh-uh". It's like laying out honey and then becoming cutely exasperated that you caught flies. The root of this mistake is deciding: "this is what I thought this artwork should be," and then structuring the critique by analyzing the distance between what [was] and what the writer [imagined it should've been.] Next time you watch a game critique, notice how much the critic is actually addressing the game itself, VERSUS, how much time is spent using an imaginary ruler to compare the game that exists in the writer's imagination to the actual work. In some essay critiques, this is upwards of 90% of their content. Now, this is typical of a product review (you are evaluating a purchase for other customers, and an imaginary "ideal product" is something you need to assume is possible-- but this is not serious criticism, it's an economic service). Instead, (and this is the proper job of criticism)-- a more interesting critique can always be achieved by analyzing what [was] and what [happened because of that.] All serious works of critique developed in the western canon (that have value on their own) possess it because the writer sought to understand and perform a taxonomy on the work's entire shape, rather than dressing up an IGN review in big-boy clothes and pretending it's a scholarly work. JA is actually just ignorant on a base level because he's under the delusion that a critic's job is to "make the work better"-- and in order to refute him, I'll just quote Northrup Frye because it's way easier: "Value-judgements are subjective in the sense that they can be indirectly but not directly communicated. When they are fashionable or generally accepted, they look objective, but that is all. The demonstrable value-judgement is the donkey's carrot of literary criticism, and every new critical fashion, such as the current fashion for elaborate rhetorical analysis, has been accompanied by a belief that criticism has finally devised a definitive technique for separating the excellent from the less excellent. But this always turns out to be an illusion of the history of taste." In any case, the idea that something could in any way be "flawless" is a critical void, so we can extend from that that the analysis of "flaws" compared to "triumphs" is at best a starting point for a real critique, rather than the end goal. To continue to reference Frye, imagine if "Fearful Symmetry" was 300 pages of him talking about the "flaws" of William Blake's poetry and comparing them to the "triumphs" of it-- it would be completely infantile.
This is a great comment. Well articulated. I'm currently working on a script that speaks a little on this. The appreciation of art goes beyond value judgment. Internet discussion can be so much more than arguing over if something is "mid" or not.. I want to talk about feelings. I want to talk about meaning. I need heart.
@@GredGlintstone it's a topic I feel needs to be covered by someone! You should check out the book "Anatomy of Criticism" and at least read the polemical introduction, which is the first chapter. I feel like the discourse it goes through there is exactly what you'd be interested in.
Very important video, I hope it trends. You gave much clearer words to describe my frustration with so many UA-cam video game criticisers. The script was also well-written, with great word choice and acknowledgment of subjectivity/objectivity! I have never played Elden Ring or any Dark Souls game, but your points got across to me very well.
My god this has to be my favourite video on this entire website. Its been a trend for years to only talk about the negatives of a game and I never understood why anyone who enjoys games would ever feel satisfied creating something like that. Aside from the obvious fact that negative content performs better in YT. Either way i really hope this video gets a lot of eyes kn it because i really believe that gaming discourse and critique needs to change
Nothing wrong with honest negative videos, this video isn't even advocating for less negative videos. They're fun (especially when it's short and to the point) and are sometimes meaningful and insightful. Only talking about the negatives is not inherently a bad thing, ironically enough. What's wrong from Joseph Anderson-styled video is that they're claiming to be a balanced critique when it's really not, say that the game is good (masterpiece, even) but spends the majority of the video on the game's flaws that may or may not be true, and then went self-victim mode when they get totally deserved criticisms.
Sometimes it's because of frustration, for example pokemon Pokemon fans are so tired of the downwards trend in quality of the games ever since gen 6 that released more than 10 years ago Gen 6 was decent, ORAS was good, gen 7 was a breath of fresh air with new systems, but the constant hand holding soured the experience, also didn't help that USUM was just the original SM but with a slightly revamped story, so you ended up buying a whole new game for little extra content. Then sword and shield released and was super disappointing for the first switch title, legends arceus was another breath of fresh air but underdeveloped, then gen 9 came out as the first big open world pokemon game, however the open world design with gyms and other challenges not accomodating to your level, so the difficulty of your playthrough could vary a lot if you didn't follow the pre determined path of a supposed open world game All these pokemon games have their positives and negatives and while gen 9 is definitely better and a step forward compared to gen 8, it doesn't change the fact that pokemon fans have been hopeful that the games would capture the essence of the first 6 gens, gen 4 and 5 especially sense those had a pretty good narrative, gen 6 had the novelty of 3d graphics and mega evolution, legends arceus the novelty of a more action combat gameplay in addition to slightly revamped turn based combat, but other than those games, no pokemon game really comes close to doing something new or groundbreaking for the series That's kinda why I think we love to point out negatives, to show what could be changed, however we should also point out positives to show what should be kept, for example the constant praise gen 4 and 5 get to their story or gen 6 with the mega evolution mechanic, or legends arceus with the catching pokemon on the field, without entering combat with them
@@pralenkaman8105 the thing is that modern pokemon DOES capture the "essence" of the old games, which is something the community forgets. Pokemon is a customizable pet raising rpg like it has always been, and it has always been fantastic and special in that regard. That is not changed by a national dex, or battle frontier, which is partially why those features were chosen for the chopping block in the first place. The issue is that gamefreak has to balance quality with ambition in a realm where many other games can beat them in both. It's not necessarily a downward trend of quality, but a relocation of an already mediocre quality.
Ya I 100% agree, I don't want fluff positive critics but honestly there isn't much to complain about Elden Ring other than performance. Same thing happened in the Zelda community, for some reason most of the essay videos on Tears Of The Kingdom are all negative. Despite it being one of the best games and a masterpiece in the medium. Most of the critics were just nitpicking small points and basically ignoring all the good stuff which makes your essay look way too biased .
@@tamim3319 to be fair, and I'm not saying tear of the kingdom is a bad game, far from it, but the game did plenty wrong The underground is very empty, with little to do besides getting armor that isn't even new, most armor in the underground is the dlc armors from breath of the wild. Other than that, all the underground has to offer is zonyte to build vehicles and po souls to use at po statues, there's little side quests there besides the master kogha ones and the spirit temple one too Then there's the overworld that's pretty much the same as it was in breath of the wild, yes the major regions are changed slightly, but they return to normal once you defeat the temple's boss Then there's the sky islands, which are cool, but very far between and some of them are very.... VERY small, others are copy paste puzzles, which is understandable, open world and all, but still very unfortunate due to how few there are Of course there's also the stiry which doesn't take in considerstion what happened in breath of the wild.... but at the same time it does? Like it's very inconsistent, the champions of each region know who you are, but then some other villages like kakariko, people don't even recognize you as the co-owner of what is now zelda's house, even though you're the guy that helped rebuild that house and that side quest is canon due to terry town existing, this game is very inconsistent with its narrative Now I want to say it again, tears of the kingdom is an amazing game, I definitely had my fun with its mechanics, the vehicles were fun and made exploration feel much better, even with the reuse of the open world there were still some fun mysteries like the whereabouts of zelda and the master sword, the dungeons were a breath of fresh air and the fuse mechanic made fighting higher tier enemies actually worthwhile This game is great and it can be even greater... if you haven't ayed breath of the wild, because its biggest hinderence is the exploration being too familiar to its predecessor
I knew something was up with the latest Joseph Anderson video when most of the intro was him half jokingly explaining delusions of grandeur and railing on the souls community. Glad I wasn't the only one who thought it.
On the whole subjectivity/objectivity thing, as something that's always bothered me about how people with little philosophical literacy talk about such things: Subjectivity is only implied when a statement is in regards to something that cannot be anything other than subjective. If a person says, "(I think) chocolate tastes better than strawberry ice cream(in my opinion)", even if they were to drop the linguistic markers of subjectivity, we recognize the subjectivity because it isn't clear in what sense a thing could taste better(a qualic feature of the subjective experience) than another in objective terms. However, most statements are not, in fact, clearly subjective. They're composite statements, consisting of part empirical observations/claims, syllogistic features(A and B, therefore C etc), and value judgements(reports of subjective experience), and as such, are prone to being wrong on levels of the empirical claims or reasoning regardless the subjective elements. If a person says, "In Norway, people have long holidays and a relaxed work culture, therefore (I think) Norwegians are more happy," that's not "just an opinion", and, if someone were to question whether Norwegians do in fact have long vacations and a relaxed work culture, or how that entails happiness, no-one gets to just dismiss that with some vacuous appeal to opinion or subjectivity. Almost every statement that comes out the mouth of critics(and indeed most people in general) are synthetic, and therefore subject to possible errors of judgement worthy of scrutiny and critique. Using appeals to opinion or subjectivity to obfuscate that or reject criticism is disingenuous and/or displays a fundamental lack of understanding of rhetoric and linguistics. To be fair though, some of this probably comes from the fact that the word "opinion" itself isn't used in a particularly narrow and clear fashion. Fundamentally, we should probably only refer to subjective value judgements as "opinions", but we do not, except when disingenuously trying to defend faulty statements from critique. The aforementioned synthetic statements are regularly referred to as "opinions". But, if we accept them as such, then opinions aren't merely subjective statements and as such, the delineation between them and empirical claims in general is meaningless. On a related note on language, and a tiny nit-pick: There's no such thing as a "wrong fact" or "incorrect fact". That's oxymoronic. Either something is a fact, or it isn't. A "wrong fact" is just a false claim or error =P
Great comment and well spoken. You've said a lot of things here that I struggled to. Very valid nit pick. I really debated what terminology to use there. The intention was to show that they are not opinions because they can be verified and are just objectively wrong, not subjective. But you said it better than I did.
@@GredGlintstone No worries. I think you got the point across and I was just very enthused to see one more person in this space actually adress it, because damn it, has it become common for people to use "opinion" as a shield for their faulty logic or dubious factual claims. The nit-pick was mostly facetious 😅
The problem is that most people don't utilize the higher parts of the mind; all they know of "thinking," is simply opinions about feelings they have and nothing deeper. I call people out for hiding behind "it's just my opinion" or "it's subjective" all the time. You can't say "the way the artist used the color blue in this painting is bad," and then say "that's just my opinion". You made a statement, either delve deeper into the facts of the matter and (at least attempt to) make a definitive statement about how they used blue, or say "I think" or "I feel". Maybe the blue clashes with other colors and detracts from the rest of the image, then say that. It's not that hard.
It seems that a far more acceptable title would simply be "My thoughts on Elden Ring: Shadow of the Erdtree" if all they're gonna do is say it's their opinion when they feel as if they're going to be challenged on certain points lol. "Maybe it's just me but I feel as if x is overtuned in terms of difficulty" is much better wording if you're not interested in being challenged. It may also invite likeminded people to comment "It isn't just you, I thought that too" rather than having arguments about what is considered good game design and how the uploader actually sucks at video games therefore their critique is invalid.
After watching some of Loopine's videos around the same topic regarding Feeble King and others, seeing this video in my recommendations and giving it a watch has truly vindicated my entire mindset about these sorts of creators. I remember giving both Anderson and Feeble's videos a watch when Elden Ring released, fully believing most of what they talked about, buying into pretty much all of it. As a new fan to these games because of Elden Ring back then, I didn't think much of it, but these last 2 years and the release of the DLC really opened my eyes as to just how awful so many online self-proclaimed "game critics" are at critique. Honestly, the problem extends outside video games as well, as other media are plagued by very similar bad faith or terrible critics, and this topic could've extended far beyond just the extent of Elden Ring and Soulslikes in general. The entire landscape of online media "critique" has been, in my opinion, over saturated with individuals just like Anderson and Feeble. Bad at proper critique, negativity centered, and filled with lies, disingenuous arguments, or hypocritical statements. Honestly, the moment that broke me more than anything was Feeble's DLC video and his disregard for getting to see St. Trina, and saying the "real" reward was just a cookbook. As someone who loves the lore of Elden Ring, that blatant hand waving away of one of the game's most important and enigmatic characters in the lore felt, to me, more disrespectful to the people who worked on the DLC than just calling them lazy. Calling them "absurdly lazy" is one thing, but to do that, not even acknowledging the artistry of her design, the somber music, the revelation of getting to see someone the community had been speculating about for over 2 years, not even a passing mention of her was a more direct level of disrespect that showed, right then and there, how shameless his "critique" was. Edit: misspelled "Loopine"
I loved reading through your comment, I agree with everything, don’t worry, there are a lot of people like me and you who appreciate the game’s artistry while not being too negative, Elden Ring with its DLC is my favorite game of all time and I’m a huge Soulsborne guy that has been playing their games for years now.
On "oversaturation of ... negativity ...": Negativity sells, and UA-cam becoming a viable source of income for many these days may have played into that. I don't have any scientific sources rn but I'm confident enough that we can find papers on that easily, since drama and outrage has been a mainstream media staple for long. Just from a layman's perspective, videos that take a negative approach almost always has a higher view count than the positive ones. Channels like CinemaSins took advantage of this to great effect. Heck, the 2 videos on Gred's channel that blew up are discussing destructive behavior, and I only have found him because of this video. But yeah, I think humanity could benefit from a bigger push on focusing on the 'wins'. I make a habit of praising independent authors' (whether that's a musician, artist, game developer, or challenge-runner matters not) work, articulating details that they've clearly put effort in, etc. What they're doing is usually thankless and speaking of experience, one single thought-out compliment/constructive critique can mean a lot.
Feeble and many others (like myself) don’t care about the lore. There isn’t a good gameplay reward for defeating that boss. Someone whose experience is far more gameplay centric would of course have that opinion.
@@pphaver871 Yet there is a gameplay reward. The boss's remembrance which gives you either its weapon or a sorcery, runes to be used for whatever purpose you want, access to the rest of St. Trina's quest which gives you more item rewards, and the cookbook which gives you access to new crafting items. Whether or not you deem that as "good gameplay rewards" is entirely up to personal opinion, but it's still rewards for defeating the boss.
@@Stellos812 I’d say a secret area that leads to Stone Coffin Fissure, which is a moderately-sized level, that has unique enemies with unique discoverable weapons (St. Trina eternal sleep sword), plus a huge remembrance boss, a number of cookbooks, more Scadutree fragments, and a big lore revelation that solves a questline is probably the best instance of rewarding exploration I’ve ever seen in any Souls game, including Elden Ring itself, a game which excels at exploration & rewarding the player. It’s really funny with the way some on here come about this, since when did Souls games ever give you as much rewards as Elden Ring? Bloodborne when you beat Orphan of Kos, what the heck did they give you as a reward? Nothing, just a trash useless weapon “Kos Parasite”, what did DS3 give you after beating Sister Friede, just her Soul that gives you her weapon, nothing else. What did the game give you after beating Midir? Just his soul, that’s it, you fall down a big hole and you find him, that’s it lol. And Orphan of Kos & Sister Friede are part of the main path, Putrescent Knight is a FREAKING SIDE path, and it gives you more rewards than the main course in Bloodborne & Dark Souls 3. 😭😭 I can go on and on…
Every now and then a vudeo comes along that really makes me question what i used to get out of my old habits and really creates a mental shift towards being a better person ..this us ine of those, thanks so much for the experience and for giving me the chance to learn ❤
Truth be told, I've had a difficult time connecting with how Joe approaches his views on games and media as a whole for years. I've found it challenging to find that he appreciates games at all with his laundry lists of complaints and jabs of everything that he looks at like he's a mechanic working on my crappy car. I have found that over my time listening to essays on this platform that the writers that stick with me the most are those who speak from the love of their subjects. I will always first think of the Jon Bois' and the Jacob Gellers of creative non-fiction that are looking to bring deeply interesting topics to our attention over long form criticism that often fails to speak of any passion other than hatred. This video has been saying what I've been feeling for years, I can't thank you enough. I too hope that people will more openly talk about how media truly makes them feel and free themselves from being algorithm beasts. Well done, I hope to hear you speak from love soon.
To even begin to equate what Joe does with "hatred" is bafflingly hyperbolic and inappropriate. I've been watching Joe for years (er, I mean when he was still regularly putting out videos), and I've always been able to sense his passion and love of the medium. He just biases towards what he feels are design flaws/incohesion. To compare him to Jacob Geller is also thoroughly bizarre, given they're so wildly different. No one goes to Joe for arty existential musings, and no one goes to Jacob for analysis of frame timing and mechanics execution. They're both great at very different things.
@@SabiJD >no one goes to Jacob for analysis of frame timing and mechanics execution. They're both great at very different things. What are you actually talking about here? You realize that this implies that Joes is good analyzing frame timing and mechanics, when one of the main things shown at the start of this video is that he is actually not good at that? If that wasn't your intention why not just say what Joe is actually good at and what people watch him for.
@@AceKuper So the fact that Joe was off by, what, 13 frames in one example in Elden Ring disproves all his examples of combat design in, say, a God Of War video? Don't be ridiculous. I love both creators (Joe and Jacob), but they're not even close to comparable, and gaming culture benefits from having both.
It’s almost as if these UA-camr “critique” channels were waiting to absolutely eviscerate & tear this DLC apart only for UA-cam engagement, it was really obvious, Feeble’s video came out less than 2 weeks after the DLC’s release, he was even inadvertently saying that playing through & finishing the DLC felt like a job, gee I wonder why lol. 😝
@@HeyTarnishedyeah , i think their criticisms a lot of the time are terrible especially since as someone looking to get into game design i have been reading / watching a lot of different people and it's always good to see different perspectives, but videos like those just seem snobish / nit picky / hostile / sometimes just plain wrong and then hiding behind the it's subjective guys ( or even when it's positive it's not very useful for someone wanting to learn and understand games )
@@lynackhilou4865 Yeah I get it, the gaming communities can get pretty weird & aggressive at times, it's scary to even think of designing video games or coming up with great games when games like Elden Ring & Zelda TOTK (2 of the best games of this decade) are getting torn apart by many UA-camrs that want engagement farming, when in reality, millions of players are enjoying their games & these 2 games are always in their list of best games of all time (Elden Ring is my favorite game of all time).
@@HeyTarnished finally someone has some empathy towards devs. Unfortunately the zelda dev teams were pressured by the criticism that there latest title "echoes of wisdom" brought back a lot of classic zelda elements to please the toxic older fans. Although echoes of wisdom does a great job at blending new and old zelda some of it still feels forced and I think the toxicity of the old zelda fanbase is the blame.
My hot take I guess is that I don't think anybody has ever actually had their opinion changed by a review or essay. Not when it comes to things like a game and whether said game is any "good", at least. People just value reviews because it gives them the rhetorical tools to better explain their own feelings. They have already reached a conclusion as a result of having experienced the game, they just want somebody to offer an explanation as to HOW that conclusion was reached. It's why I think arguing the nitty gritty details of a popular review's argument is a bit futile, as it's making the mistaken assumption that the viewers who agree with the opinions being expressed only do so on the condition that said opinion is wholly factual. Which just isn't the case, more often than not. People echo the sentiment because they share that sentiment. Look no further than this video's comment section, where replies range from counter-arguments from those clearly unmoved to people feeling like they've finally been seen because somebody has made an essay that validates their own feelings. You cant logic somebody out of position if logic didn't place them there in the first place, after all. Which is not to say that any one side is the "logical" one here, as art and what art means to you isn't really something you're meant to view through a purely "logical" lens. I'm also not even really accusing you of believing you can change people's minds or anything, this is just something I've been thinking about a lot whenever I started seeing these back and forths about Elden Ring.
100% agree. I think you can have your opinion changed but you can't make someone "like" something by convincing them it's good or "dislike" something by convincing them it's bad. Thinking of making a video about it. It's why the discourse is so toxic. People are trying to win a war of objective truth about art which is impossible.
@@GredGlintstone Part of why I personally like Joe's videos so much is that I disagree with him often, but he explains his own feelings and their roots in the game very effectively. Sometimes I agree with all or nearly all of his points and felt the same things he did, those thoughts were just overshadowed by elements I enjoyed to result in a more positive overall experience . His BotW review, for example, hits on basically every criticism I have of the game, but the parts of the game I enjoy outshine those criticisms so thoroughly and are so unique to BotW and the games that have been inspired by it that it is still one of my favorite games.
"You cant logic somebody out of position if logic didn't place them there in the first place, after all" This line is so good man. This applies to almost everything, not only video games.
Wow. I waded into this little idea of the direction that the video would take, honestly there was a point where I was skeptical that a commentary on a commentary's commentary would have much to say. Instead I have been blown away by how this video has been equally insightful and challenging but beautiful to experience. So thank you for that, I hope this video has been meaningful for you to make. Also the "Womb to tomb" line is an absolute banger.
1:30:24 "The only meaningful difference between most songs is the notes, the note order, how long they're played, and the tempo" One of my favorite parts about SotE was the weapon variety and the fact that I could so easily level them up to 19 or 20ish. I used a dex build and I swapped constantly between the new dual backhand swords, a twinblade, a katana, and a great katana. I was having a blast and each weapon felt completely different
Feel like so many of these outrage bait gaming channels don't actually like games that much. They're actively hurting the games community with such hyperinflated, unreasonable reactions - roast comedy is the perfect description for what they do, but when it's dressed up as 'serious games critique' their cruel opinions absolutely get reflected back into broader gaming culture as a whole. As a dev it is fucking exhausting, and you constantly fear having the crosshair pointed at you.
My problem with the Elden Ring DLC cook books is that I think there were just too damn many of them. Nearly every single one only unlocked only one single new item to craft; if you cut the number of cook books in half and made every book give you a couple items instead of only one, it wouldn't be quite so noticeable.
As I'm listening to this video I keep thinking back to Joseph Anderson's Lies of P video where he constantly makes asides with saying how "embarrassed" he is that he keeps praising the game and even admits he doesn't like the format where he pulls the "criticism trigger" for more than half the runtime. I think that really makes me think you have a serious point with all this.
I also want to mention that after awhile I just stopped caring about critique videos. I don't really care what other people think but the thing that worries me is these people negatively impacting the developers. So I think it is still important to call out people with a big influence like Joseph Anderson.
Don't you trust developers to know what is good or bad for their game, and to be able to say if they agree with a critique or not? Individual critiques are not what change follow up games or creative projects, it's the general community opinion and takes more than anything else that can change a game for the worse, and have the most power to change a game end of.
@@repnir7428 People can be swayed really easily these days and developers will be forced to listen to them. They have to create games that they are less passionate about. Maybe fromsoftware isn't one of those devs because since the beginning they've been criticized heavily but they still kept on doing their thing. It's the indies I'm worried about. I've always wanted to create my game but my biggest fear is that people will start hating it and specifically the parts that I loved about it. So either I have to remove the parts of the game I loved or ignore the hate. People have a have time accepting that if they don't like something doesn't mean its bad. With people like Joseph Anderson, being able to sway the population into his opinion, out there it just scares me.
why tf would the devs care, they already have a cult like fanbase that calls every tiny thing that comes out of the company peak, we need more of these critical youtubers who actually use their brains and arent biased
@@SuleX00-ov5ip "I've always wanted to create my game but my biggest fear is that people will start hating it and specifically the parts that I loved about it." That's the nature of making any creative work, it's unavoidable. Only advice you'll really get about that worry from other creatives is that you just need to put up with it, or ignore it. Either way the answer is a different variation of just toughen up unfortunately. Also, just remember, you never make your dream project as your first project.
I'm pretty disenchanted by the negativity pervasive in media critique. Why aren't more video essayists articulating why they love the media that grabs them? Don't we all want to better understand all the subtleties and patterns that supported an authentic catharsis? It's frankly more fulfilling to make a case for why something activates your passion than your rage, and audiences do show up for it. The catch; I think honest, positive critique requires a greater level of vulnerability than constructive/destructive criticism, and *some* creators just don't want to be vulnerable. I'va also gotta figure it's just more profitable to be destructive. I worry people growing up on this style of "critique" will come to believe that greatness rests in the absence of things to criticize. I worry "constructive" criticism is going to inhibit the ambition of creatives and their publishers.
About the end. It is kind of sad that Joe had to create strawmans in that reddit post to subvert his own created deadline that no one in any seriousness was holding him to.
Oh. My. God! The "Why Don't You Want Games To Be Good?" part of your video was the nail on the head for me, it's like a hammer hitting the nail in the most satisfying way, oh it was too good, you literally took the words out of my brain & spit it out to your Microphone into an editing software, into a video & finally uploaded it to UA-cam. So satisfying to hear that from another person. I was screaming "EXACTLY" I even clapped a couple of times. Absolutely phenomenal, thank you so much! Also "The EXPLOSION" part was also fantastic & hit the right notes while being respectful too. I just finished the video. Before I end my comment, there's one thing that Feeble said in his 1st video about SOTE & it was this point about game difficulty: “Hard doesn’t & has never equated to good game design.” He brought the “hard” concept in a vacuum, stripped out of its influence on game design intrinsically, OK if that’s the case, let’s bring a game that he adores (Sekiro), let’s make it a much easier & forgiving game, because hey, since the “hard” part of the game isn’t what made it good, let’s make enemy attacks slower, let’s make the player not die after 2-3 hits, let it be after 10 or 15 hits, let’s make Genichiro or Sword Saint Isshin have less complex combo strings, less weird timings, less delays, surely that’ll make it easier, but will that equate to a better designed game? Or a more “fun” game? No, it does not IMO & I for dang sure not in his opinion nor the majority, now the game doesn’t require enough understanding of its mechanics, there’s no reason to feel any threat or respect to its rules, there’s not much rewarding feeling afterwards, now combos are much more simpler & the rhythm has been decreased dramatically, so we stripped the “hard” part now and this is what we get, a much simpler game, surely “less than average” players will enjoy it without finding much hardships or frustration like with his Mario Lost Levels VS Mario Bros example, a lot of the “fun” that come from FromSoft's games is through their mechanics & recognizing patterns & using the player's mechanics in order to overcome those, both have to be congruent, you can't move really fast in Sekiro while every other enemy & boss are much slower than you or have very simple combos, this is what makes them fun & hard (whoa that sounded suggestive 😅), overcoming adversity & hardships is what makes you feel rewarded. And I like how he took the OG Mario Bros & said it’s better for the majority, he counted that as a positive, but From Software’s games have never been for the majority, in fact, the harder they get, the more people they brought, so this throws a big curveball to his argument fundamentally, just look at DS3, BB & Sekiro sales, they're higher & more popular than Demon's Souls, DS1 & DS2, and this supposed “hard” DLC sold 5 million units in a week, so people enjoy the difficulty & overcoming adversity? Or they shouldn't because that will make them "toxic" when they disagree with you, Feeble...🤣😭
I'd argue ds2 and ds3 are about similar difficulty wise, they just express the difficulty differently, and i wouldn't really be able to say i like either significantly more
I have had this exact same thought for a while now as someone who listens to game critics as sort of a podcast. I really like how you made your points, I subbed instantly! You are points apply to almost all of them. Heck it's not even Fromsoftware games, like the Zelda community has had some big critic videos with the same issues. They basically nitpick every small detail that is negative but forget the art, the amount of amazing mechanics and pretty much everything that is good. Usually they will give 5-10 minutes for the pros and the rest of the video is just low effort "criticism".
I have been watching a lot of negative critiques for the game for a while now, and I always had problems with them. but I could never put my finger on it. You basically laid out all the problems i had with them that i wasnt even fully aware of. well done!
One aspect of criticism that I've seen of the DLC that rubbed me the wrong way was the "Marvel Expectations" that a lot of creators had about the dlc. So many of them were so excited for the DLC not as the next chapter/conclusion of the story of Elden Ring but because it could fill a wishlist of seeing their favorite lore characters finally be someone that they could meet (and probably battle). This isn't bad to want but when you don't get your fan fiction come true you can't just get pissed that From Soft didn't include a character thet you placed too much importance over their actual relevance to the story. This goes especially for Godwyn, The Gloam Eyed Queen, and Melina because there was some genuine rage from the fans that they weren't given entire textbooks of lore in the DLC despite just not being as relevant as theh thought. Of course we're not going to bring up the entire encyclopedia of single mention Dark Souls, Bloodborne, or Sekiro characters because this is totally the first time FS hasn't followed up on a character's story *cough* Velka *cough*. I distinctly remember Ziostorm breaking down the design of the curseblades when they were first teased and he kept relating their design back to Godwyn despite them not remotely being related lore-wise now that the DLC is out. Im not saying that people can't have theories and speculation but I'm so tired that fandoms will now treat theories and speculation as gospel even if it goes against actual cannon, I like Vaati as much as the next guy but he shouldn't be treated as fact just because he's the most popular. And what pisses me off the most about this is that the story of Elden Ring as we know it was only 1/3rd of the way uncovered and was still being pieced together a while after the game came out but a ton of people looked at the DLC lore for like a week to put everything together, made their lore videos and called it a day and then complained that it was "too shallow". I'm still mad about a post I made on a forum trying to discuss some of the thematic and lore implications of the Final Boss of the DLC but because the final boss was considered "bad" I got a bunch of responses telling me that it "wasn't that deep" and I was "coping on a meta level", when the entire point of the vagueness of souls games is about the speculation and themes of the game itself (TBF some sections of the ER lore community are so media comprehension starved that they thought the genocide of the Hornsent and their culture was completely justified). Someone made an entire video essay diving into the color symbolism of Elden Ring but it's crazy to think that FS may have put more than five minutes of thought into the final boss of the DLC even if the choice of boss wasn't 100% agreed with by everyone in the community.
@@anonisnoone6125 No, no. Calling the lore lackluster after not exploring it is not valid, it's just being impatient. You know one thing I heard back in 2022? that ER itself had lackluster lore. Now that 2 years have passed it's just the DLC that failed to provide. It's cyclical, people are impatient and take their visceral reaction to things as the absolute truth, then it's left for the actual lore channels to explore it and suddenly things change. I'm new to this community but apparently this cycle is old enough that it also happened in Dark Souls 3.
@@DanielFerreira-ez8qd one of the most cited reasons for the dlc's lore being "bad" is that Radahn being Miquella's consort doesn't make sense because if Radahn likes killing things why is he siding with a supposed god of peace. The explanation is incredibly obvious. The npc that said "Radahn only likes killing things" is wrong. (It's her word against Jarren's and Jarren is much more trustworthy)(also her loyalty is to Miquella, not Radahn, and she's trying to justify Miquella's actions in reviving Radahn). Radahn is siding with Miquella because he can act as a protector of the realm, similar to his idol Godfrey. More importantly, Marika had her share of enemies and she was backed by the creator of the universe. Miquella is going to have enemies and he knows it because the history of the Lands Between is a circle. More importantly, this is entirely happening because the community doesn't want to see Radahn as anything less than a hero.
@@puncherofbread That cited reason has a very easy explanation - Radahn's consent is entitely a mystery. He wasn't in on this vow entirely willing - he had to die for it, for one, but for another - Miquella is the damn demigod of charm, he has pulled stunts like this several times over, in the basegame alone.
@@DanielFerreira-ez8qd I always thought it was clear that Radahn rejected Miquella's offer to be his lord. The memory we see at the end of the fight is Radahn's with miquella talking to him. He tells him that he's going to become a god and begs for Radahn to be his consort, in which nothing is said. Radahn rejected Miquella, and his charm (which the boss armor talks about). Miquella was obsessed with Radahn and would do anything to have him, going so far as to have Malenia suicide bomb him. Once Radahn was dead Miquella can put his soul into a body that was already charmed and control him like he's always wanted. Everything Radahn does from halting his own fate with the stars, refusing to die in Caelid, and his ideology points towards Radahn being forced into the role against his will. This is all just one possible conclusion to come to with the DLC and it's really disheartening when people say it doesnt make sense and undeservingly dunk on it when this is some of the best and most complex lore FS has put out
@@xXTallertechXx People were tunnel-visioned into Godwyn being a figure Miquella also looked up to, which meant the Radahn reveal made no sense to some people.
I think one of the things that really rubs me the wrong way about JA is how so many times in his videos he softens his critique at the end by saying that the work of the game feels unfinished and if the devs just spent more time making it perfect then he and everyone would be happy. Meanwhile he has been stuck for literal years not releasing his Witcher 3 video which I believe he said was more or less done when the first video came out and he just seems endlessly hung up on it. Like how can you be actively experiencing the problem of just forcing everything to be "perfect" and not realize that this is a bad suggestion. I'm surprised his channel doesn't do month Star Citizen news round ups since they're the only devs that actually do things the way he thinks they should.
I have never played a dark souls. I'm not part of the community. I don't even know who Joseph Anderson is. All that said, this video is the one that's motivated me to finally get into the series. Thanks dude.
I think a lot of these creators have interpreted “critique” to mean “point out all the flaws in something and ignore the positives in the name of artistic improvement” and not “provide a thorough and comprehensive analysis of a piece of artwork for the benefit of the broader discussion of the piece”, and the implied exclusivity of “critique” helps them feel more comfortable in sticking to their guns and not taking any criticism themselves. I’ve felt put off by Joseph’s work for a while now and couldn’t put my finger on why, but I think the “my job is to provide criticism for creators and I’m doing them a favor” mindset is exactly the problem
Critique can mean anything you want it to mean. There is no codified set of laws which require a critique to take a balanced view of a game, or to also point out positives. As a player I want to know what someone's time is like with a game. That can start with objective things such as how good is the options menu, how usable is the UI, do you have a good system but yet are getting poor frame rate issues. Everything else about the game is subjective. Was it fun, was it easy, did you enjoy certain sections and so on. Hearing what you didn't like is more valuable to me as a player because i can determine whether your concerns are anything like the same as mine. What I don't need is a puff piece extolling every last virtue of the game. We already have "game journalists" who do that. People like to hear nice things being said about the games they love, its the equivalent of someone being told they're pretty. There's nothing wrong with that, but you learn nothing by hearing that, except your opinion for liking a game is validated. However the negatives are far more valuable to you. Ultimately its up to the individual viewer to find a variety of views, you should never take a single critiquer's views as the gospel. You need time and experience with any given critiquer to know whether they run negative, positive or somewhat in the middle. As long as they are consistent and you know their biases then you can use them as a valuable resource. Critiquers who are not consistent are worthless.
@@Blackened30 It is very much widely accepted that 'critique' means a COMPREHENSIVE analysis of an artistic piece, philosophical theory, etc. Even so, you yourself used a strawman argument here. The guy didn't say "I want puff pieces"; he said "a thorough and comprehensive analysis", which in no way implies hearing only the positives. Furthermore, "I want to know what someone's time is like with a game" and saying you want to hear predominantly the negatives can lead to antithetical results. It can result in a critique that convinces you the critic had a bad time, even if his opinion might be overwhelmingly positive. Few people are going to exclusively follow a critic to the point they get their 'language', style, and unspoken implications. You use another strawman argument when talking about puff pieces and "the equivalent of being told you're pretty". To say (or imply, because you did) there's little to no nuance and a failure to evoke artistic understanding in talking about the positives is blatantly false, not to mention... IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE! If it was that easy to make something good, and thus to analyze why that thing is good and how it manged to invoke strong positive feelings, everybody would be doing it. This especially applies to something as complex and with as many components as video games. The same work of art not only can but WILL be adored by different people for different reasons; hell, that applies to individual bits within that work. There's plenty of nuance and exploration in understanding why something succeeded for the critic and reasons to express that appreciation in the hopes of expanding on the discussion around that something. Besides, the validation point you mentioned can absolutely apply to the negative-focused critiques. I'm not saying talking about the positives is inherently better, because it isn't. But that applies the other way around as well. I hate this myth of 'all positive critiques are the same, all negative critiques are negative in their own way'. Furthermore, you won't find most critics of any artistic medium try to offer suggestions to the artist, nor be expressly negative for a work they predominantly enjoyed, for the simple reason that they understand what their job is. Even if it isn't codified (a statement with very questionable validity), there is in fact a strong understanding of the role of the critic within art.
@@Marco1995Mega My view is that game critique is different than any other form of artistic critique because there are so many variables involved. What does a comprehensive analysis of a game mean? Do you need to complete it? Do you need to complete it on every difficulty, as well as new game plus modes, find all the secrets and kill every optional boss? Do you need to do every last thing possible? Very few games critics who cover a wide variety of games have time to do that, let alone come back to it 6 months later after several patches have dropped. The single game or single genre critic or the ones who release a large video every 6 months can do that. The retrospective game critic looking at a 5 year old game that's "finished" might do that. An art or book critic has a much easier job since any single piece they analyze will never change over time. The term "game critic" can cover anything from someone who's played a few hours and is now giving you their opinion on that time to the 6 hour in depth analysis. One of those is of more worth to me before I buy a game, and one is of more worth to me after I do. Where the line stops between a review and critique is blurry. Critics are rarely that positive about games because its not their job to be, in the same way that movie critics can spend 20 minutes bringing up all the faults and missed opportunities and in the end say they enjoyed their time with it. The idea of being critical is to find fault, all of them, even in the most wonderful of games. I don't take it to mean that the critic didn't enjoy their time unless they specifically state that. For me its them saying here is what I feel is wrong, see if it matters to you. I find that extremely valuable, especially from a valuation perspective of whether something is worth my time and money. A retrospective critic working to understand the actual value of a project is an entirely different animal, with an entirely different frame of reference where they may go more into the positives and negatives and dive deeply into all facets of a game. These are the ones who are more likely to talk about the game as art, instead of the functional nuts and bolts that make a game worth playing. Critics making suggestions to game developers isn't something that bothers me, everyone has an opinion on what makes for a better game, and everyone is free to share that. To touch on positive critiques for a moment, I appreciate it when a critic tells me they enjoyed their time with a game and why they did. I appreciate when they tell me yes these are the faults, but that didn't stop me from loving the overall. When I say I learn from the negatives, I mean the other 2 hours they just spent tearing apart the mechanics are more informative to me. There's also nothing wrong with someone writing what amounts to a love letter to their favorite games with only minor criticism or none at all. You can argue about whether that constitutes a critique or not, but I don't find those to be learning pieces. They feel good to watch, and that's all. True puff pieces come from professional games journalists primarily for reasons that I find disingenuous much of the time.
@@Blackened30 A lot of what you said is based on what I think are false or flawed premises, the primary being that there isn't a very recognizable, identifiable differentiation between review and critique. There very much is. The point of a review is endorsement for a product or the lack of it; it serves an economical purpose. A critique is comprehensive analysis of an artistic piece (and other things) achieved through critical thought and an informed perspective. Joe himself has echoed that same idea, and stated that his critiques are intended for those who have already experienced the games, not as a review for those going in blind. Yes, I'd argue it borders on inarguable that in a critique, the critic at least completed a regular run of the game, and not necessarily NG+ or all the difficulties. I agree that with games, 'comprehensive' can be a bit hard to define in SOME cases, but let's not stretch that to the point of meaninglessness. Furthermore, you're confusing why critics are called critics. It's not because 'being critical' means showcasing the unfavorable elements, but because they're trying to build appreciation for a piece through critical thought and analysis. Yes, that also means pointing out what they see as shortcomings, but I've still rarely, if ever, heard a movie or music critic be almost exclusively negative in their reviews of works they've mostly enjoyed. Another premise I think is flawed is the idea that more positive critiques have no educational value. Again, the main point of artistic critique is to invoke artistic appreciation, whether that ends up being positive, negative or a mix of both. Expounding on the positives absolutely can offer deep insight into how one achieves such great accomplishments, and indirectly, where further improvement could be implemented to achieve even greater heights. Furthermore, finding shortcomings in mechanics, the "functional nuts and bolts" as you said, will not provide an objectively more valuable evaluation because it is NOT objective. Unless we're strictly talking about the driest of facts like bugs and frame data, the ultimate evaluation will still be subjective, because a game critic observes those objective elements - of how the game's mechanics fundamentally work - and finds subjective meaning in the whole. Two action game critics could make vastly different evaluations on the same action game, like many did with Sekiro for example. A critic making negative evaluations on that front is thus no more or less inherently educational or significant than the critic making positive ones. In part, because there is another false premise here, which is that positive evaluations do not go just as in-depth into the nitty-gritty as the negative ones. Finally, negative critiques have absolutely been rightfully accused of being disingenuous, farming engagement, and acting on bad faith. I've seen my fair share. Hell, professional games journalists do such things all the time, too. Not to mention using game journalists to comparatively devalue positive critiques makes little sense in the context of the wider internet and business of critical evaluation. They're monetarily incentivized to be more positive then they ought to for those future review codes, like you implied. However, in the world of freelance critics and UA-cam, where negativity and rants are proven stronger tools to accrue audience engagement, it would make more sense that negative evaluations have a higher chance of being disingenuous, with the opposite being true for more positive ones.
@@Marco1995Mega A review can certainly be endorsement or lack of endorsement for a product, but it doesn't need to be. A review for me is a simplistic view of a game that can be gleaned in a quick video or small article. It exists to give an explanation and possibly a viewpoint of a game that's bite sized. It can end with a meaningless score out of 10 or with an endorsement or lack thereof, but it doesn't have to. It could simply end with someone saying they enjoyed the game, which you could take as endorsement if you're so inclined. The only mandatory requirement of a review is that the person reviewing finished the game. Not 100% completion of all optional content, but you do need to know what you're talking about to evaluate a whole game. People tend to get angry when a reviewer admits they didn't play the whole game. You could refer to a review as a quick and dirty critique, because judgement of the various games systems as well as the story and how well it all worked together as a whole is implied. Between the review and the 6 hour no-holds-barred entirely comprehensive critique of a game sits a wealth of analysis videos. UA-cam has made it possible for people to really get down in the weeds if they wish. A creator could make a 2 hour video containing commentary on only the first 15 minutes of a game. They could talk extensively about the first encounters, the layout and graphical style, the effectiveness of the opening cinematic and a whole host of other analysis, comparisons and overview of how well it all worked for them. I would label this a critique of that section of a game. Its absolutely comprehensive in its subject matter, albeit with a narrow focus on a sub-section of the game. This is where I mean the definition of critique in the gaming sphere is not defined, and I think still evolving. This is subjective, so if your opinion is a critique has a narrower definition then fair enough. You are right to say that mechanical analysis doesn't provide more objective evaluation, which was not a point I intended to make. There are very few, if any objective evaluations within any video game critique that can be made. There is a subset of the viewing audience who scream about such things, but I think it always has to be understood that what you're watching is someone's opinion on something that's already as subjective as a video game is in the first place. Of course mechanics such as how fast a move can be used or how smooth movement feels is going to vary between people, which is why getting a variety of viewpoints on a game is critical. My own view is I find more value in the negative opinion of a given system or element of a game because people do expand on it more. They feel the need to defend that viewpoint, so tend to wax much longer on those points. For me the more information you give me about how you feel about a certain element the more I learn and understand about your view of things. I love mechanics, its something I've always enjoyed since the earliest days of my tabletop gaming days. I care very much about how and why something works for a given individual. If some element of a game isn't brought up in a given video then I assume its something that is liked, or isn't notable to that creator. Its also much more obvious to me why something is liked then why its disliked, and that's why I want to hear a 20 minute derailment of someone's main point as they go into exactly what it was that didn't work for them. Its probably just me and who I am, and if others find the positives as interesting then fair enough. For me, I simply learn more from what is disliked. So its not going to bother me if someone spends three hours shredding a game I love, because I already know why it works for me. I want to know why it didn't work for you. For me the mechanics are in many ways the core of any game, so its vitally important. Games as art and whether all games are art or not is a whole other subject, though I think games are more than art and it can be limiting to think of them in only one way. As to accusations of creators being disingenuous, every creator at one time or another faces accusations. I imagine every video has its detractors. I don't have an opinion on that. I don't have the ability to see into anyone's mind and determine their intent. I'm generally fine with taking a creator's opinions stated as their true opinion because it frankly causes no harm to believe so. If they state they're playing Devil's Advocate or very obviously saying something provocative because they know it will get a rise, again that doesn't bother me. Trying to get a rise out of your audience to create engagement is as old as humanity I imagine. Professional game outlets and their stock of rostered staff I tend to view differently.
I think what most people need to realise is that critics, alongside their criticisms aren't immune to being criticised and that they aren't immune to being wrong at times. Many often just goes with the loudest opinion too and that for some reason just instantly kills their ability to think critically
"You can use a Rune Arc to give even greater benefits to your equipped Great Runes." - implies that there is a benefit to equipping Great Runes, before using a Rune Arc.. and that using a Rune Arc makes that benefit even greater. I'm genuinely trying to interpret that in another way, but I can't. Remember, some people haven't played Dark Souls. If you didn't already know that's how Great Runes worked, would you really interpret the description any differently?
The argument isn't whether I interpret it differently or even if it is reasonable to assume it could be read in a different way. It is not objective if it isn't a fact. You can say that the text is really confusing. You can't say that the feature is objectively bugged. Two very different criticisms.
@@GredGlintstone My man, theres alot of hills to die on, Fromsofts conveyance of their item effects and mechanical information is not one of them, Even Miyazaki has said there is room for improvement on their end.
I agree that this is indeed a misleading tooltip - especially if one has not played any souls game - and this fooled me as well. However from context the natural conclusion to me is that this is not a bug, but more likely either a mistranslation or a leftover from previous designs due to a mistake. I think this is also overall a small issue, and that getting super-mad about it like in the original video is an overreaction, bordering into the "literally unplayable" meme territory.
@@sasaki999pro I don't think he's dying on that hill though? I just read your thread here. You agree with one another. You both agree that poor conveyance/confusing tooltip is the problem. I agree with that too btw. I thought for a fair bit of time that equipping the rune had a base effect.
@@albertoorsomariaiorio2823 within context the mechanic of rune arcs is trash if it is indeed supposed to work like that. Time to die in this game is simply too fast for rune arcs to work
I think the point behind the "get good" discussion is that its the blanket, mindless response, not peoples real opinion. Theres no reason behind them saying it, so it adds nothing to the discourse.
And, I feel skill issue could still be seen as an insult? It literally means 'you are a poor skilled player'. I can 100% understand why people would feel insulted if the only response to them being frustrated with a mechanic was 'you suck'.
@@evilfungasIt's unfortunate, then, that it's almost never used in that context, and is instead used to discard valuable criticism because the recipient of the statement is "worse at video games" than the other person is.
absolutely tired of that same "flawed masterpiece" title that atp i roll my eyes so far back in my head that i can see my own fucking brain people are so afraid of liking something, or god forbid loving something, that it's become mind-numbingly infuriating to see
While I think that It may be less excesive and there are instances where It could be though better, I also considerate that the people complaining about reusing assets on an open world have a fundamental misunderstanding of how these games are actually developed. On a Game as Big as Breath of The Wild, for instance, they had the Big Challenge to fill a map 5 times bigger than a linear Game, with a limited amount of budget and a limited amount of time. Apart of the main story points, they had to fill an insanely Big world with worthy stuff. And is there are upcomings and shortcomings over a Big open world to a short open world, same as It happens Within a metroidvania and a linear Game. And these are not flaws, just advantages or disanvatanges that someone could consider them weighty enough to make their veredict. Elden Ring has by far the biggest roster of Boss fights of any Fromsoftware Game, having the amount of DS1 and DS3 Bosses combined. Bosses that actually have a lot of effort behind, hell, a lot of minibosses are as complex and Varied as DS1 lategame bosses or DS3 middle bosses. I do not consider this a flaw, hell, I would say I consider this an archievement.
Meh, content creators are always going to piggyback off popular titles, before this it was hbomberguy's "Noun is Adjective (And Here's Why)", popular things get copied because they're popular and people will click on them anyway, no one values originality as much as they think they do imo
@@JoseViktor4099 exactly. I don’t get why people think asset reuse is only a negative thing. Take rgg (the yakuza studio) and their games. They’re able to be made quick (gaiden was made in 6 MONTHS and it’s a great game) without sacrificing quality because they reuse many assets when they can, even entire areas from previous games, to save on development costs and time.
finally. this video is perfect for someone like me. I hate the current state of negative game “critique” so much 😭😭 feeblekings videos on shadow of the erdtree specifically were very frustrating
@@GredGlintstone What kinda logic even is that... lmao Saying you don't think a game is as good as people say it is ≠ being frustrated about people liking said game.
After a third watch of this video I think it is worth mentioning that if we accept that video games are art, and we should, then we also must accept that this conversation between artist and player has been going on since Demon’s Souls. When I finally got around to playing through Demon’s Souls in 2020 most of the game was a cakewalk. That’s because I entered the conversation with Bloodborne, played through all the other games available by 2020, and then played Demon’s Souls. Something that FromSoftware has done a fantastic job at though is pushing players to improve, to think outside the box, and to use different mechanics to overcome challenges. Bloodborne teaches players that they don’t need shields when they can dodge. You could play the previous games like this already but FromSoft at the time of Bloodborne really wanted to say to players “hey, don’t use shields. We think you’ll like it.” Similarly, Sekiro pushes on players that fights have a rhythm to them. If you tune yourself to these rhythms you can perform better in fights. Elden Ring shows players that they have multiple strategies when it comes to defeating enemies. You have consumables, throwables, magic, faith, you have weapon arts, you have different kinds of weapons. You can go back to Demon’s Souls and see that this has pretty well always been the case. The games have just added even more stuff as they have gone on. The reason I bring this up is because if these critics like Joseph Anderson and Feeble King say that these are some of their favourite games, and I assume they have played all of them, then it becomes absurd to think that they have not also recognized this. The games are more challenging as they go on because FromSoft knows we can handle it. Not because they get some thrill from smashed controllers. I also wonder how much of the criticism comes from them not enjoying their first playthrough, making a video in that headspace, and then not wanting to say they were wrong. I know if I made a review on Elden Ring after my first playthrough it would have a lot of negativity. I did not enjoy the game too much once I got to Mountaintop of the Giants. My friends and I complained a lot. I recognize now after thinking on the experience that the negativity was self-made. I didn’t change my strategies. I didn’t use the mechanics available to me. I kept thinking on the game and when I did return for a NG+ run I specced into Faith, got some Incantations, and by the time I fought Morgott again I was having much more fun. Instead of waiting for the limited punish windows to hit him with heavy attacks I was peppering him with fire as he moved around the arena. I was created new opportunities to break his posture. A few months ago I watched another response to Joseph’s original video and in it the creator mentioned that you can use throwables to interrupt Melania’s Waterfowl Dance. It felt like a bomb went off in my brain. I had no idea that you could do that. Now I am excited to eventually fight her again.
It goes back to a broader point of “intended experience” in video games which makes these huge modern games quite difficult to gauge. There’s a lot of games in the past that i just approached with the “wrong” mindset and just couldn’t enjoy. Is my criticism of those playthroughs valid? Or was I just playing wrong. In my playthrough of tears of the kingdom I started by spending 3 hours going out of bounds. Was I wrong in playing this way and feeling a certain way? It’s inherent to video game analysis compared to more passive media like movies and books. There there is a much clearer experience, compared to games where you can ruin your playthrough.
This is why I try to actually think about what someone is saying in reviews or critiques. Actively listening to get to a conclusion on their stance as apposed to just consuming the video and moving on. There have been moments where I’m like, “that’s a bad faith argument” or “that’s not even true” and actively question the persons words as to not take them at face value as true or as some arbiter of knowledge.
Big agreement with your artistic scenery point. I just can’t figure out why people play video games and instantly try to reduce the experience down to a number crunching game. It’s so bizarre to me…..why not just code or do arithmetic?
I like the Elden ring better the Shadow the colossus, BUT, SotC has my FAVOURITE open World out of any game and it’s not even close. SotC’s open world is probably the emptiest open world I’ve ever seen, and I love it. I say this because I never hear anybody talk about the openness being a positive, the space in between. It’s good stuff.
I feel like ultimately none of this matters as the deeper issue is internet culture. People lose sight of middle ground, etiquette and even proper sentence structure. If ANYONE takes a UA-camr as the first and last word on ANY subject, they’re the one making the mistake. The culture of the age is rage and if you aren’t stirring it up or creating it, you are lost in anonymity. Become and introvert and your life will be improved, IN MY OPINION.
Seriously, thank you for this video. The amount of missinformation, hateplay, and condescension that has spread in the community is ridiculous; just like you said, these types of reactions by some members of the community wouldn't be acceptable in other communities or media. Goes without saying that you can like something and still have issues with it, but apparently we are glazers for not validating other's frustrations and opinions.
12:10 ya joseph was melodramatic, but he was right about the description of Great Runes being factually incorrect. "even greater benefits" means there are benefits that will become EVEN GREATER, which is wrong since there are no benefits at all without using a Rune Arc, and "you CAN use a Rune Arc" implies it's optional, which is only true in the sense that any buff in a game is optional, you can play naked Lvl1 without weapons if you want, but it's not optional for activating your Great Rune's benefits. That's not some subjective interpretation, that's what those words mean. They should've written smt like "You must consume a Rune Arc to activate your equipped Great Rune's benefits. This effect will last until you die"
To be fair though, even in truth this argument feels nitpicky. Like ok, sure, its an issue with the game, but is it particularly harmful to the player's experience? Most people, whether they assume the great rune has passive effects or not, will not notice a minor increase in their stats. If somebody is expecting some benefit from their great rune in the moment, then they are actively thinking about it. Perfect time to use a rune arc and reap those large buffs. A very minor stat increase will rarely matter in situations where it might. Aside from any of this though, my biggest issue with this argument is that its disingenuous, and comes off as rather spiteful. The rune arc is very blatantly not "bugged." It works exactly as intended, as it was designed to function. Perhaps a passive buff was cut from an earlier version of the game, and they forgot to update the text. Perhaps it was a mistranslation. Perhaps it was a bad description from the start. Perhaps the person writing it misunderstood the feature. There are any number of reasons the text could be wrong, but to not just assume, but _assert_ that it is due to a bug, a broken aspect of the game, a failure worthy of rage and ridicule,,,, is absurd! This couldve just been a funny little thing. A quirk of the game that may or may not get fixed as Fromsoft works on larger issues. But no, he had to turn it into a culture war. But this has been colored by my personal bias. At its most fundamental level, my argument remains: it is fucking _insane_ to assume that this is a bug and not a misprint. I imagine that JA _wants_ it to be a bug, because he _wants_ that passive buff.
You guys are such massive babies, oh no one thing from this japanese game was translated incorrectly and has no effect on the game itself and is blatantly obvious what its intended to mean to anyone who thinks about it for 3 seconds. Thanks for pointing it out and making such a big deal out of it though, it really illustrates the problem with joseph anderson critiques given that most of his criticisms boil down to minor grievances like his that he can exaggerate to look like major problems that is DESTROYING VIDEO GAMES
@@apuffin9545 ironically, youre the one making a big deal out of something here. Explaining the point of the remark that Joseph made, and that this video rebuked is a contribution to discussion - which is the point of all these videos. Screeching about how everyone is a baby that's 'destroying video games' for having a discussion is a great example of exactly the issue Joe brings up with toxic fanbases. If you dont want to engage in the discussion, then at the minimum please stop throwing a tantrum at it.
@@apuffin9545 chill bro, nobody's making a big deal out of it here. the text is simply incorrect, and no it's not obvious that it means smt else. The only one freaking out here is you (and joseph anderson)
Only gripe with the vid is the slight misrepresentation of Matthew's vid (lost art of demon Souls) but overall a much needed video. It's so, so hard to find good video game commentary and critique. Everyone is rage-baiting and throwing out fancy terms with zero grasp on what they mean.
You think so? I thought I argued that he makes a lot of good points. I only took issue with a couple of his blanket statements about a lack of innovation and why dodge hit is boring. I think his argument about strategising for fights is actually really strong. It's why I bring it up because people always use the vid as evidence that the souls series has gotten boring but that's not what Matthew is arguing. I actually really agree with Matthew in that video for the most part. But really appreciate the nice words again. The fancy terms is a big one. I made sure to show my definitions. I was worried it would become more like a powerpoint presentation than a video essay but I felt like it was really important. I really don't like when people on youtube use fancy words but don't explain what they mean. It's really elitist imo.
@@GredGlintstone I was specifically thinking of the Micolash preference and "Bloodborne is more Demon Souls" part which wasn't what he said but you did end up clarifying later. The clarity on terms is a breath of fresh air. Didn't feel like a PP presentation at all. Well done.
Thank you for making this video. It is extremely frustrating to watch the discourse regarding FromSoft games gradually getting degraded by content creators who confuse criticism for critique. I love Matthew's videos, but specifically his commentaries on Demon's and Dark Souls, which I don't think were mentioned in this video. These commentaries elevate the viewer's understanding of their respective game's design, they're the antithesis of "video essays" that infect the discourse with bad faith arguments, incorrect information, or well-poisoning against anyone who would offer a counterargument. I appreciate that you acknowledged that Matthew only has three critiques in this style and that they're distinguished from their descendants by the context within which they were written (at least, Dark Souls II's and Bioshock Infinite's were), but I thought I'd still bring his commentaries as positive examples of criticism. After all, this is the same man who spent 6 months writing about Zachtronics games to no one in particular. Noah Caldwell-Gervais also deserves a mention for the quality of his critique. [WALL OF AUTISM WARNING] As it stands, video game "critique" now exists to either validate the viewer's own preconceptions about a given subject, not to elevate the viewer's understanding of the medium or the media being critiqued. Many people watch videos about Bethesda games because they want their disdain for Bethesda's stagnation and decline as a developer validated, because it's cathartic. Many people watch videos about FromSoft to have their own experience of playing through the game validated, because it's cathartic. Some people will even intentionally watch videos by content creators whose opinions they personally disagree with for this catharsis. Any opinion that differs from my own or offers a different perspective that I didn't previously consider is a threat, rather than an opportunity. Critique has become about seeking out the critical echo chamber that accommodates your thoughts and feelings, rather than having them be challenged by different perspectives. Worse, the majority of criticism is of a low quality. A lot of what critics like Anderson argue evinces a lack of understanding about game design, rather than giving their opinions and perspectives credibility. Whenever I see that the majority of footage in an Elden Ring video is of dual colossal / colossal greatsword jumping attacks, it instantly discredits the author; not because this is an inherently "low skill" way of playing Elden Ring, but because it is a "low engagement" way of playing. Elden Ring's combat, much like Monster Hunter, is designed around the simple principle of momentum. And like Monster Hunter, the factors influencing the momentum of the fight are deliberately obscured from the player for the reason you stated at 1:31:04. Elden Ring hides the enemy's stance bar and status effect bars (status being the momentum equivalent for weapons with low stance damage). Monster Hunter hides the monster's part break, stun, status, and stagger thresholds. This is the secret sauce of these games' combat mechanics, and anyone who begs for a stance bar to be visible above every enemy fundamentally does not understand Elden Ring. Dual colossal jumping attacks is low engagement because it is the path of least resistance to exploiting this principle of momentum. It is the most efficient way to exploit it in most fights, and allows you to brute force fights without learning either the fight itself or other, equally important principles. (Blood-infused antspur rapier fingerprint stone shield shieldpoking is the path of no resistance, because it completely circumvents combat mechanics.) When I see dual colossal jump attack spam and only dual colossal jump attack spam, what I see is someone who sees the game as an inconvenience, not an opportunity to play. Similarly, some critics seem to willfully misunderstand the purpose of "useless" items in SotE - both in the world and dropped by enemies. Rather than elevating our understanding of the game's design by explaining that these items were probably placed by the developer to encourage players to actually experiment with the new weapons and spirit ashes in the DLC without having to rely on the base game and disrupt their DLC playthrough, they view them as a personal affront against their own steady stream of dopamine; an interruption, an inconvenience, rather than the convenience that they are designed to be. And then there's the dreaded "useless for my build" criticism. I want to stress that there's nothing wrong with either of these examples... until you start having a very vocal opinion about game design in front of an audience of hundreds of thousands of viewers. In both of these above examples, there's a common thread of >If it isn't designed for me, it's bad >and because it's bad, I'm not interested in understanding it The lack of a visible stance bar is bad because it doesn't accommodate my preconceptions about what the game should be. Rather than feeling the flood of relief when that Hail Mary charged R2 delivers me from death, I think it would be better if the game make itself more predictable so that the challenge can be predictably overcome. (Even though stance breaks are easily achieved through intuition, because Elden Ring's stance break system is universal unlike its antecedents - with the exception of Sekiro, which is explicitly designed around stance breaks to the exclusion of other mechanics.) Because the challenge is not perfectly predictable, there is risk and I can't overcome it with perfect consistency. My dopamine stream is disrupted and I feel discomfort. Rather than delving into this dungeon, not knowing whether what may or may not be in it might be "useless for my build", I think that it would be better if the game provided me, the player, with more agency over what I do and don't receive; perhaps some sort of universal reward which could be exchanged for items or even stat points that I do want, ensuring that I am always progressing my build even if the Raya Lucaria Crystal Cave contained crystal sorceries instead of a big FUCKING sword (which I wouldn't use because it's useless for my build). My dopamine stream is disrupted and I feel discomfort. I have to experience trial and error. I have to be challenged and overcome that challenge. I have to learn. I have to play the video game. And for whatever reason, this is the most consistent criticism I see of Elden Ring and FromSoft games now: people hate the core principle of being challenged and overcoming that challenge which has guided the series since Demon's Souls. People are actively hostile to the design of these games that they profess as their "favorites" and seek out the path of least resistance, all the while spreading misinformation and bad faith arguments about them - or, worse, putting forth amateur game dev. suggestions that would only make FromSoft more like other video games that people disdain. Video game "critique" isn't critique. It's barely even criticism. It's a blog about the author's own personal experience, at its worst lacking either curiosity or critical insight. I am extremely thankful that FromSoft, for all their flaws as a developer, are evidently unconcerned with fans' feedback and have guiding principles that have allowed them to make good games for as long as they have. I think that we are witnessing not the decline of FromSoft's design philosophy, but its incompatibility with increasing mainstream success. The beauty of Demon's Souls was that it forced the player to adapt within a rigidly structured experience that still rewarded thinking outside of the box; from examples as simple as picking up the Crescent Falchion in 4-1, to planning and executing complex paths through the game to create nonstandard builds, which was also rewarded in Dark Souls. The concept of players being unified by a common experience works within the framework of Demon's Souls because players will very likely have a common experience. The issue is that the spectrum of experience in Elden Ring is far too wide to produce substantive discourse. FromSoft games have always relied on a nonstandard method of modulating difficulty - or rather, letting the player modulate difficulty - but the unprecedented freedom that Elden Ring offers the player stretches this method to its limit. It is extremely difficult to reconcile the experience of someone who played through the game at level 300 with a fully-upgraded Mimic Tear and a bleed build (again, nothing wrong with this), and someone who played through it two-handing a quality Claymore infused with Stamp (Sweep). Worse, It's impossible if neither party wants to concede that spirit ashes decease the game's difficulty, or that playing it like you would Dark Souls in 2011 increases it. Rather than living in a weird dystopia where everyone is forced to provide footage of themselves playing the game before their opinion is considered, I'd like to see critics helping to bridge this experiential gap with critical insight, because I think that's what is needed to make discussing FromSoft games possible again. I love these games, but the truth is that while I once sought out discussion about Demon's Souls, Dark Souls, Bloodborne, and Elden Ring, I no longer want to discuss them at all.
Thank you for taking the time to write this. I can tell you’re very passionate and I can empathize with your feeling of being a little over discussing these games. It’s become pretty rough online lately. Don’t feel you need to justify your experience to anyone. Enjoy it on your terms.
I just gotta through this out there... The fromsoft fan base is not the most toxic worst fan base. It's the competitive pokemon fan base. As a man that has had an unhealthy obsession with both franchises I can say hands down that the competitive pokemon fanbase is the worst.
@@Glitchedsoulsborne how bad are we talking? I've never been in Pokemon that deep. Though as a former RuneScape player, I'd wager their fanbase is so much worse than the Souls community, given there are people who would commit literal crimes if you so much as slight particular people. Not to mention ddosing, and doxxing. Soulsbros will, at worst, call you names or slurs. It does not compare at all.
@@user-pn4px5lr8w I didn't realize runescape community is like that either wow. Ya the worst the souls community does is say git gud and throw a dung pie at you haha.
@@Glitchedsoulsborne ya it's absolutely rotten. It's partly why I've distanced myself from the game, though mostly the gameplay stopped appealing to me.
In Matthew's dark souls 2 review, after he says that miyazaki claimed difficulty was never the point he says that the point is to pull the player into the world and deliver climatic moments. When i searched for interviews where miyazaki expressed his opinion on difficulty i found this quote, "When I’m playing these games, I think, This is the way I’d want to die - in a way that is amusing or interesting, or that creates a story I can share." This sounds quite similar to what Matthew was saying about climatic moments. In another interview he said "I feel like our approach to these games, not just Elden Ring, is to design them to encourage the player to overcome adversity. We don’t try to force difficulty or make things hard for the sake of it. We want players to use their cunning, study the game, memorize what’s happening, and learn from their mistakes." In this quote he directly says that the games aren't difficult for the sake of being difficult which is a statement i think could be reasonably summarized as "difficulty isn't the point." Matthew's paraphrasing of the ideas miyazaki has expressed into "difficulty was never the point" has been misattributed as being a direct quote from miyazaki so many times not because it is an outright lie that people have heard and falsely believed, but because it is a short and simple distillation of one of the principles behind the souls series. here are the two articles i quoted 80.lv/articles/dark-souls-creator-explained-why-fromsoftware-games-are-so-difficult/ www.pcgamer.com/elden-ring-director-miyazaki-says-he-doesnt-want-new-players-to-stress-about-difficulty/
@@dedstring ^ Already seeing people go to Matthew's video complaining about him "making up quotes", likely only seeing as much of his video as is shown in this one.
Not wanting thier games to be difficult for the sake of it isn't the same as difficulty not being the point, it is like Miyazaki said numerous times about given a fair consistent challenge that the player can learn and adapt with, it doesn't mean the games aren't hard or that their difficulty isn't a big appeal/part of the experience
"Not difficult for the sake of being difficult" is not the same as saying "difficulty was never the point". It's just saying there's a purpose for the difficulty, which is giving the players a sense of accomplishment. Even so, you're ignoring ALL the other times Miyazaki said that difficulty WAS the point, that the difficulty is one of the main, INTENDED appeals of his games.
He's only saying that there is a purpose for the difficulty, he didn't say difficulty wasn't the point. He still said Miyazaki said that the difficulty wasn't the point "over & over again" (which is another lie), which isn't true, Matthew should've said HIS OWN interpretation of Miyazaki's thoughts on difficulty by starting with "My own interpretations...", it's really that simple, but not as if he is reading his words verbatim, if we collected most of Miyazaki's interviews around every game release, you'd find that Miyazaki hasn't directly said anything close to what Matthew understood from him, actually it's on the opposite, he advocates for higher & higher difficulties, there are many other interviews that would support Gred's point, in an interview with EDGE Magazine in 2011 around Dark Souls 1, Miyazaki said "I have no intention to make the game easier. In fact, I want it to be more difficult. The way I put it to my team is that we are trying to make the most difficult game that is possible to make, which at the same time can be conquered by those who persevere. It has to be firm, but fair." Now you can interpret this how you want, because if you applied that same quote above to DS2's difficulty, it would fit it perfectly, if I were to counterargue Matthew in the defense of DS2, I'd always bring up this interview, always, and I have the direct quote right there, which would cement my point much stronger than Matthew's. It's why I would side with Gred more than Matthew. Also if you listened to Gred carefully, Gred was calling this BS because most people would bring up those words from Matthew's video as if it's from Miyazaki in order to try & criticize & berate Elden Ring's difficulty, which is a very difficult game, but is absolutely fair, so Elden Ring's difficulty would easily slide within Miyazaki's 2011 EDGE interview, so when we face much more difficult games than DS1/2/3/BB, like Sekiro & Elden Ring, we shouldn't even begin to bring up this fake quote from Miyazaki which Matthew created out of thin air, it created a false narrative, it caused a lot of people being misinformed.
Game reviewers who use “____ is a broken masterpiece” made me stop watching those videos. It’s so easy to make and so dumb. This goes for critiques of shows as well. Long ass videos to just blow out their own ass. It’s simply not proper criticism, and it’s rampant. Thank you for targeting them
On this topic, at least in regards to video games more so than other pieces of media, the game in question is usually one that’s widely considered mediocre or just plain bad, I also noticed this trend around 2 years ago when a bunch of different channels started making videos about how Kane & Lynch 2 was actually great and that it was a “misunderstood masterpiece” While I can appreciate the games aesthetic, to make an hour long video essay that suggests an edgy 2010 cover shooter is trying to convey anything thought provoking about violence in media is kind of absurd, as you’d expect the videos of this kind had very little to say, stretched out and explained at a slow, meandering pace, the critic would rarely, if ever, talk about the intention of the developers and what their vision was for the project
absolutely brilliant video. i hope this starts a new trend in "critique" thats more nuanced and informed, with points that is actually backed up by facts and logic and research.
I pray to Surrogate-All-Father Miyazaki every day that this video receives far more attention than it has because i genuinely think seeing it would benefit a lot of people greatly. Forgive my toxic positivity but I don't think I've ever seen a more detailed, well edited, well thought out and thoroughly entertaining video. Sitting through 2 hours of someone talking about video games has never felt so fulfilling, and i sincerely hope you never quit making content and hope you enjoyed making it as much as i enjoyed watching it. Praise the sun!
Dear god, thank you for making this video. I always had similar opinions toward this kind of content for years and it's so refreshing to see so many people agreeing. Not that I need a random youtuber on the internet or his viewers to validate my feelings, but when no one talks about it for years, it can make people feel crazy and alone sometimes. '^^ Again, thank you.
18:45 YES THANK YOU! Games and the communities surrounding them has become ridden with content brain. "Where's my reward? What's the use of this? Why is there no loot? Why is there bad loot?". What happened with games are art? If you watch a Wim Wenders film, or read a book by Salinger, sometimes a scene will exist just for it to exist. Maybe it will grab you, maybe it will make different people feel different things. Either way it will do something to you, because you're experiencing the art work. This is what I felt with a lot of the "lackluster" ares of SotE. Finger ruins is awe inspiring and otherwordly. I haven't seen anything like it in Elden Ring or any other Soulsborne game for that matter. The abyssal woods are extremely atmospheric. Them locking torrent and making this place so big really makes you feel like a lost tiny soul. Maybe the replayability isn't top tier, but I just dont care man. I'm here to play the game and enjoy it for the piece of art that it is. I don't care about content and loot, just give me an experience I won't forget. If I want to replay it - great! If not, i'm fine. 40 bucks for an amazing first time playthrough is totally worth it in my book.
Plenty of areas in the original game were awe inspiring and filled with things to do. Finger Ruins are not awe inspiring and they take up roughly 10% of the dlc map. Cope all you want, OBJECTIVELY, they're a waste on a monumental scale. & don't comment back saying, but the metyr fight!!!! Once again, plenty of areas were in the lands between are awe inspiring with THINGS TO DO. The lake of rot isn't 10% of the whole map that i paid 100$ for in total. See the difference? The OBJECTIVE difference?
@@skepsisrollins1711 Haha did you watch the video until the end? It's kinda fun that you're harping on about objectivity when the whole point of the video is how interpreting art and objectivity is just not a thing. I'm happy the finger ruins are huge with nothing to do. I didn't know that my first time through, yet I felt awe and terror and mystery when I traversed through it. Having covered it all, the fact that there wasn't anything there just made it feel even more mysterious. That's how I felt. I can't tell you how you felt, but what I was trying to say with my post was that maybe, sometimes, we could loosen up the feeling of I-payed-for-this-now-give-me-constant-content-with-clear-cut-meaning, and just let things be weird and unclear for the sake of being weird and unclear.
Critics are way too lost in the sauce of how games are made and how they're "supposed" to be made for the player. Aren't games a player driven experience? Aren't the most memorable moments in old games the times we break them?
@@lukebytes5366 yes, yes they are. RPGs specially double down on letting the player drive the story. It's really telling how bad JA and others are critiquing when they miss the fundamental point of what an RPG even is, while trying to pretend they know what they're talking about.
@@GredGlintstonehonestly I would never have known you were newer to UA-cam just based on this video. Incredibly well presented and you’re a great orator as well. Does your professional life/job include some crossover skills that help with UA-cam? I just ask because you come across as pretty experienced in this stuff!
Mohg at RL1+0 is SO MUCH FUN, I was thrilled seeing your section on him. He's one of the walls in RL1 runs that I think everyone should try, it gets you thinking so laterally and down to the finest detail to figure out how you can beat him, and as you get better and better, it just becomes this beat down on him in phase 1 where you feel absolutely invincible until he knocks you back down in phase two. It's so good, he has so many punish windows during his combos, you can positionally dodge a lot of his stuff to get free attacks in, and the whole thing is just SO GOOD
@anonisnoone6125 The blood fire is definitely a pain, but you get to a point of being able to tell "will I carian retaliate this in time or do I need to switch into full dodge and spacing mode once the fire is on the ground." Incredibly frustrating getting to that point, but it feels like you're slowing down time and fighting like Neo when it clicks, which has this weird sense of soaring that other bosses don't have. But yeah, I was losing my mind at points. Had to rewatch SaintRiot doing Mohg at RL40 to remember just to roll forward most of the time in phase 2.
Thank you for mentioning the "only reward is a cookbook" BS. I was in complete awe as I ventured closer toward St. Trina. Finding Miquella's message near her made me cry. Seeing her, hearing her soundtrack, and her dialogue made me speechless. To me, the main rewards within the DLC are about the story. Meeting St. Trina, finding Marika's homeland, learning about the jar people and their genocide... these creators can't claim to be dependable sources of critique/information for a game series when they can't even appreciate the point and artistry of it.
You make a good point, especially when talking about St. Trina and the Finger ruins. It seems to me that most reviews say they want to treat games as the art they are, but then refuse to accept beauty, awe, and emotion as intrinsic rewards because they're not stat upgrades. This is an issue that seems to be ESPECIALLY prevalent when it comes to communities around ARPGs that selectively apply standards to games with no real basis. If you, like me, grew up in the heyday of JRPGs, you know how beautiful, exciting moments like cutscenes are their own reward. Hell it used to be a joke in the Final Fantasy community that you played the game to watch the anime minisodes inbetween. But now I have a feeling we've lost that. It's no longer enough to have a vista, or a fun fight, or a little puzzle. "Oh, a korok seed? That's useless!", "What do I need a Smithing Stone [2] for? My weapon's +10" the game used to be its own reward. Now if your awesome optional bossfight with a beautifully designed creature doesn't give you a Hyper Godkiller Mobius ∞ Ultra it's worthles.
You seem to miss the point of games being INTERACTIVE art and that the base game already did all that perfectly fine, it may have a good vista maybe a beautiful expression of the artist but it's still supposed to be a game. If you want to observe beautiful views they're other medias for that. The underground city is a beautiful, straight up gorgeous place especially that 1st visit with the slow elevator but even after you have really good things to do down there, new enemies, bosses, materials etc. If The finger ruins were supposed to be simple vistas there would be no need to duplicate them or have them be as big as they are. This isn't even a FR or st. Trina problem either. The whole dlc has these good looking areas that are just that with some repeat bosses and cooking recipes. The same happens with the rewards, if you want to act like vista 1st and game later type of scenery, ok, but at least give me something worth my time on the "game later" side and not some material that i can buy from the 2nd area of the game. Feels like people like you are extremely lenient with elden ring when it comes to everything, if Ubisoft dropped an area like the crimson/cerulean fields, finger ruins, the way to st. Trina, the forest etc. with nothing to do in it you would call it for what it is: filling or an unnecessary adjective to a sentence. Fromsoft apparently garnered a community where they can do no wrong and every sloppy material added to their game is either "misunderstood" or met with "get gud". A hive mind of elitists keen to the 1700s bourgeoisie
I agree with this a lot but I don't think they do a good job providing you with emotion for overcoming many challenges in elden ring. I think the game could use with more narrative or npcs that you care about and have your actions see more effect than just getting a site of grace to remember your kill. If killing melania reduced the scarlet rot in Caelid then I would have much less negativity for that fight because the difficulty would be justified in the effect it would have on the world. I also think they missed out on a lot of opportunistic to characterize bosses more like I think having margit randomly appear was very cool and having that be a reccuring thing throughout the game would build him up more as a main antagonist making the fight with him when he is morgott a lot more impactful. I do not like the idea that everything needs a gameplay reward but having things like this and more npc interractions would make the lack of reward for some challenges a non issue
never has a video matched my emotion so well around a topic. Sometimes the hypocrisy in these criticisms genuinely gets to me, I often have to remind myself that these people have these beliefs for a reason, despite how antithetical it might be to their actual message/taste. I'm glad you took a structured, yet fervent approach, know that this video speaks to the opinions of many, including myself. I only wish it got more traction, ah well. I can't wait to see another video like this made 10 years down the line calling out Jefferson Angleman for his new video made on the newest Fromsoft game and how it fails to capture the perfection of Elden Ring. Edit: You don't have to read this bit I just had to add a quick note because I wrote this about an 1:30:00 into the video but that final bit in "Why don't you want games to be good" and the complete deconstruction of Feeble in the final chapter is really amazing. I totally get you when you say it breaks your heart seeing some of the things these people say and believe, and even worse **get other people to believe.** I've been in the debate around Elden Ring and its game design for awhile, much like you its my favorite game, through all the discussion I've had or seen others make I don't think I've seen a better put together video that directly addresses the issue so well while also managing to be engaging and entertaining. You also amended some of the things you got wrong in the video which shows you're willing to go further than many of these "critics." Seriously well done.
38:06 Hot Take: I actually love how unbalanced these games can be sometimes. I like the idea that I can go into a situation too early and be at a huge disadvantage but if i decide to be stubborn and win regardless, my reward is to be extremely overpowered for a bit.
Oh hey, a video about Souls game criticism that isn't bad. Wish these were more common. Still to this day I still wonder what Joseph is on about when he talks about boss designs in his DS3 and ER videos. They make me question if he learns the bosses at all.
I think he'd just really like it to take less time. It's an issue of patience. Bosses are harder to learn and harder to defeat though. It's an acceptable criticism. But it's still the same core gameplay loop it's always been.
@@GredGlintstoneThat is what his argument comes down to, yeah. I do find it funny he still harps about waterfowl when you can skip it mostly with a single freeze pot
@@jedyzichterman358 You can fully avoid it by sprinting away the moment she starts it, then jump while sprinting when the 1st flurry starts, then roll the 2nd flurry, its timing is tight but it is doable, and lastly the 3rd flurry can be avoided simply by walking under her or rolling it if you're afraid a bit. It really is that simple IDK why he's making such a big fuss about it.
@@jedyzichterman358 It also works with med-rolls too but it's harder to do though. If you're too afraid of risking it, just add a talisman that gives you additional roll s or via using the enhanced rolls tear for the Wondrous Flask.
I've not trusted Joseph Anderson's opinion ever since his Outer Wilds playthrough I know not everyone will "get" it but man The message was right there in his face and he just ignored it and then was disappointed by the game's ending
I'm about 23 minutes in, but I wanted to say thank you for teaching me the difference between "criticism" and "critique" because I've never known the distinction! I always thought they were the same!
18:19 It is a really beautiful but tragic character design. She was basically torn out of Miquella and thrown into a pit of death and her sleep was warped into a kind of poison.
*Amendments*
* I unfairly threw Ratatoskr under the bus. I included him here because that video embodies a review of a game that only talks about the negative aspects really succinctly. But there is a difference between his work and the other critics I talk about. Although I dislike that video because I'm more interested in his whole opinion than the 0.2%, I don't think he's guilty of the same style of critique that I'm really addressing here. I should have made a clearer distinction. He's been cut from the intro. His thumbnails show up a couple times in the vid but please know I'm not equating him with the other people I'm talking about. Sorry, Ratatoskr.
* Seems like I fell into the very common trap of calling Nietzsche a nihilist. He's a more complex guy than that and my interpretation of his work was shallow. My interpretation in the video still stands as an analogy to the game and it's still important to show Feeble's misquotation and lack of sources. Even if my interpretation was flawed, I argue that it's still stronger and better researched than Feeble's one. But please do dig into Nietzsche's work yourself because I don't represent his ideas super well here. Sorry, Nietzsche.
*Death of the Author - A commenter correctly pointed out that Death of the Author is not concerned with the theory that the author has intended you to do whatever you want. The core of the idea is that the intention of the author is irrelevant. It's not their intention anymore. It doesn't matter what they intend. I've sort of conflated both authorial intent and death of the author in the point I make. The point still stands that you can play the game however you want, even if it goes against what you may perceive as developer intent.
*Please don't use this video as justification to say git gud or skill issue. As I've said a couple times, I don't like that discourse. I say it to Joe and Feeble in respect to their critiques as a bit of a snarky dig but I don't condone the kind of argument that waves away a person's opinions with an accusation that they are bad at the game. I think Joe reacted badly to those comments but I still don't condone the use of them. It's not about skill it's about mindset. But even so, it's not okay to say that it is someone's "fault" for not liking the game. People are allowed to dislike things in the same way you are allowed to like things. You don't need to convince them they're wrong. That's not what this video is about.
*On the great rune thing. Really surprised that so many people have taken issue with it because I thought it was a minor point. I realise now that it's sandwiched between two much bigger arguments which makes it seem like I'm equating it to be the same. It's not. It was a bridge between arguments and not the argument itself. I used it as an example to show that sometimes subjectivity isn't implied, objectivity is, because Joseph says "objectively bugged". My argument was that it can't be that either the rune is objectively bugged or the text is wrong. If it's either or, then neither is objective, because we don't know which is which. I'm sure it's Joe being hyperbolic but words are important. Regardless, I spent too much time on it because I thought it was funny how mad Joe was about it years after he talked about it in the base game review. The text is definitely misleading. My argument wasn't that Joe is silly because the system is actually clear. Regardless, it's unimportant to my overall argument and I'm happy to take the L on it. Honestly, if I had another edit, I'd cut it out because it distracts from the larger points I'm making.
Important to note! Obviously not all the reviews/critiques of this game are negative. Responses are overwhelmingly positive from mainstream video game journalists. I don't think this game is an underrated gem or anything. The base game won Game of the Year. It's clearly a very successful and acclaimed series of games and contrarian discussion is healthy and necessary. I'm talking here about a very specific form of critique that is very very common in the souls community in particular, and why I don't like that form of critique.
You're allowed to dislike it. You're allowed to think it is a flawed masterpiece. I just want to hear more about the "masterpiece" and less about the "flawed".
When I discuss opinions on the game and make claims that they are "wrong", I am addressing interpretations of developer intent that I believe don't hold up well under scrutiny. Even so, when I say something is "wrong", and I am talking about an interpretation, that is my opinion. Subjectivity is implied ;)
Keep the discussion civil. I don't mean ill will to the people I talk about in this video even if I am quite harsh and snarky throughout. This is a discussion of art and ideas. It's also a genuine plea for self-reflection. This isn't a take-down. It isn't content cop.
You're allowed to not like things. I'm allowed to like things. Let's be cool about it.
We are currently accepting new members to join the Cult of Fromsoft. Praise be, Surrogate-All-Father Miyazaki. He who satisfies our victim complex
Gred
Elden Ring is a worse game than Barack Obama and the vegan diet
Just finished the intro, and saw this comment...
You should watch Noah Caldwell-gervais videos on Elden Ring if you wanna hear about the masterpiece parts of the "flawed masterpiece".
@@Taylor_Lindise Will do! Thanks for the recommendation.
@@GredGlintstone I was also going to mention Noah Caldwell-Gervais. There is also a part of his recent Elden Ring video in which he addresses negative comments, which you may find pertinent.
@@GredGlintstonei second Noah’s content. It’s some really great stuff. Very personal, very balanced. You won’t be questioning how he actually feels about the thing by the end.
Time to change my entire world view about a subject based on the opinion of a video essayist until the next guy comes along and do it all again 😔
I can't think for myself, I need someone else to do it for me!!
@cookies_and_mustard6414 Heh, don't you know Chode466 disproved this thing you said. Here, I've linked their 7 hour video essay 😏
painful agreement man!
Lmao. Somehow every new Videos convinces till the next.
It’s better to have an open mind than “I have never changed my mind on a single game in history”.
“The Fromsoft community has become the most toxic fandom”
As an Overwatch player this feels like stolen valor.
fromsoft got nothing on overwatch lol
Or some anime Fandoms lol.
100%
The GTA fandom called, they wanna literally kill you.
The Overwatch community isn't toxic just depressed. I can name 5 communities more toxic than Overwatch's.
"I've never changed my mind about any of the games I've reviewed." Yeah, that's not the flex you think it is bro.
also he straight up lied. its a constant joke in Feebles fandom that he constantly changes his opinion and acts like he held it all along
@@darthgamer9861 crazy how he got a fandom in the first place.
Besides the fact it’s a bold-faced lie (he literally changed his Elden ring base game opinion) it’s also just sad. Does he do absolutely no growing as a person or critic? My opinions on stuff I like and dislike and “critique”(lmao) change every day. Feeble is just embarrassing.
And yet him and Anderson are "popular". This sh is crazy
@@liquidreality472 If you need proof that most people are easily manipulated by just knowing how to present your opinion in a confident manner, you can take Joseph Anderson as the biggest example
Something not mentioned is that even outside of beating the Putrescent Knught rewarding you with the Trina questline/moment, you literally get a Remembrance for a unique boss weapon like every other main boss.
not to mention the runes, standard with every boss, remembrance or not
crazy glazing, st trina quest is the worst in the game
@@harkaranbrar2342explain the thought process behind reading a comment that explicitly states "even OUTSIDE of st . Trina quest you still get such and such "
And still thinking the discussion is about st . Trina's quest . 😂
@@harkaranbrar2342 no it ain’t
@@hamptonwooster explain what the quest offers, you die to her 5 times and you get 2 lines, literal trash tier quest line get tf off from softs dick
"This video is a masterpiece, you shouldn't watch it" Joseph Anderson.
South Park
This might be the perfect comment
@@nrudy which you shouldn't read
Basically
@@poorpchelique6210yeah brother u tell em what’s what’s dats rite brother
I like how you emphasized that simple mechanics doesn't mean boring. Sekiro got Game of the Year but in my opinion it's Game of the Decade. That parry is so satisfying. And yet if you reduce it, it's really just "press parry at the right time". Simple but elegant.
I got an even deeper appreciation for the combat of Sekiro after installing some super boss mods like the elden arts mod. I highly recommend downloading some of you haven't.
100%, Sekiro is so god dam fun.
I love watching Sekiro play-thrus. Gorgeous stuff there & I find the story gripping.
@@La0bouchere At the end, it's all about excecution not about how complex or philosophical it is
Reminds me of the "Stand still and let thing resolve" joke/meme/mockery from the FF14 community. When you think about ti life is about standing still and letting thing resolve.
“In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face, is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so.”
Such a good quote it’s still accurate in this current age.
@@aidans1188 idk critics risk a lot I think, generally speaking. And that line also discounts critique as a form of art which I’m also not comfortable with.
Doesn't help Joe hates Ratatouille :V
(Based on an account of which he was watching movies with his kids)
@@MoreLoreThenThereSeemswell, that's because critique isn't a form of art. Not every creative activity or action is art.
@@angelamengualcortinas3614 what is your definition of art?
@@MoreLoreThenThereSeemsa work of art, imo, is a creation made by a talented person (or group of people) in a field such as writing, painting, architecture, videogames, etc that shows said person's view or philosophy on the world and life that can be understood in isolation from other forms of human expression. There can be "bad art" as it can lack technical expertise, but authentic art cannot be "lazy" or "half-hearted" because it should represent the honest efforts of the author.
A critique of art cannot be understood in isolation because it is a commentary on someone else's work, and thus its entire existence depends on that.
I really appreciate the point being made here. Even given the title of the video, I still partially expected a "this person disagreed with my take on a game, and therefore: me angry" video. I was truly surprised by the level of detail, research, and understanding regarding the material being spoken about. You aren't disagreeing with people's opinions, you are disagreeing with the way the opinions are stated and their overall implications. It isn't often you see something of this quality on UA-cam. Subscribed.
Thanks! That's exactly my point yeah. Their opinions are absolutely valid. They're just being really weird about how they say them.
@@GredGlintstonethose reviews sound like Twitter posts. Opinions that think they hold more weight than they do.
This is all Plinkett's fault, so that means it's all because of George Lucas. Jar-Jar is the key to all this.
What are you even talking about? Man, it sounds like you are in some kind on downward spiral mentally and now have lost it completely.
@@yucandui Guys, who's gonna tell him
@@yucandui it is a reference to RedLettermedia's reviews of the prequels
@yunuss58 Oh, I thought it was a reference to EmpLemon's most recent video. My bad.
The goongas
The goongas
The goongas
The goongas
The goongas
The goongas
The goongas
I see some people nowadays playing games like it is some kind of job. Not even stopping to appreciate anything that they are seeing.
Feeble literally says in that Bloodborne video that playing the game started to feel like a job and I was like "dude, aren't you getting paid to play this?". It is your job.
It's also sad when people show their feet on webcam purely for a job, without appreciating the artistic nuance and the human implications of the scenario.
@@squirrelsyrup1921You’re seriously comparing games to foot fetish videos?
Brief comment on the Sisyphus point brought up around 1 hour in, i dont believe sisyphus would be happy because of the merit of his work, and his ability to perfect/improve pushing the boulder eternally. His happiness derives from the fact that he could stop at any time, but that would let the Gods win. He has deadlocked himself to an eternity of monotony and repetition all on his own. As long as sisyphus rolls the boulder, the gods are wrong, and that means he wins. The second he gives up, they win.
Sisyphus enables his own hell, and he is content with that.
That's a really good point and well articulated. He's creating the meaning for his suffering by making it his choice.
Hey about sisyphus, while i do agree that Camus brings up the concept of "revolt" a lot, the point Camus makes isn't that Sisyphus is happy because he could stop at any time, it's not a revolt against the gods that casted him in this hell. It's a revolt against the absurdity of existence itself. So Sisyphus doesn't become happy throught conflict and confrontation, he becomes happy through creativity ; by finding meaning where there is none and for exemple by "leaving a trace" behind the boulder he pushes, each time the trace is different. Then, he transcend his condition, he isn't bound by the punishment of the gods, he doesn't create in spite of them.
Based
@@cosimomedicis8094 Yes, this is more accurate. There is no purpose to his struggle and he's forced to repeat it forever. It's a living hell unless Sisyphus can learn to embrace the absurdity of his situation and find happiness anyway.
This perspective resonates with me so well. When I first gained... self autonomy? Like my life isnt just me on autopilot, I fell into despair, realizing were just tiny flesh bags living on a rock in the middle of nowhere. No meaning has value and everything is meaningless. Yatta Yatta Yatta. Until last year I decided to change this nihilistic viewpoint as its toxic and not helping at all. I've now come to the conclusion, Life may be meaningless, but how would I know if I didn't look for it? Who am I to determine the value of meanings and if there is an actual meaning? If death is the inevitable truth, then life is a powerful protest. To live despite its purposelessness, isn't that admirable?
Imagine looking at the sheer scale and artistry of Elden Ring right after a release like Sekiro and thinking a studio is coasting
Both Sekiro and Elden Ring literally reinvented the genres and were completely different in design from the games that preceded them, suggesting they're coasting by is honestly baffling.
Seeing how ER is the biggest downgrade in quality since DS2 and the DS Remaster, it's really not hard to think that.
@@DelgadoKenway Bitches be complaining about anything nowadays
@@DelgadoKenwayAre you a professional clown?
@@DelgadoKenway The biggest downgrade in quality since DS2 won GOTY over the highly anticipated sequel to the 2018 GOTY. That's not to say winning GOTY is the end-all be-all, there are duds, like TLOU 2 beating DOOM: ETERNAL, Ghost of Tsushima, and Hades, but I think it's still pretty telling of ER's quality.
Can't wait for Olive Garden to drop the next masterpiece in the emerging "play as a human man" subgenre.
That was my favorite joke and I’m so glad someone liked it.
I can't wait to finally play as a human man in a videogame, our species has been neglected for too long.
@@GredGlintstonebut what do you know anyway? You're just a guy named "buthole". 🤣
Please stop posting everywhere about it! Our community of human man game players is already getting too popular & I don't want the next Olive Garden game to flatten the human man game mechanics like Skyrim or turn into super-soldier play. Don't you remember when we started all the games naked + helpless??? I miss the good old days when human man games were niche + old school.
My favorite example of Feeble King’s hubris is when he declares that he knows exactly what experience Fromsoft wanted us to have, when he doesn’t even know how Fromsoft intended you to deal with the Putrescent Knight’s grounded flame hitbox.
One of the things that bothers me the most about the stupid arguments of that Feeble King guy is that he insists that his way of playing is the correct and only valid way and that using any tool that the game gives you is not valid
Or the moons of Rellana
My favorite example of FK Hubris is to the end of his first critique when he said that if you defend these bosses is probably because you use summons, therefore your opinion isn´t valid.
@@JoseViktor4099 Meanwhile Miyazaki: I suck at video games and used everything I could get my hands on to beat Elden Ring
I have never seen his videos but did he actually claim that Putrascene Knight’s ground flame could not be dealt with? Because that would be wild…
I argued with feedle king once when elden ring originally released.
One of the worst people ive ever spoken with about it, youtuber or otherwise. I stuck to discussion about the game. I pointed out that he was blatantly contradicting himself and not making sense. I simply asked him to make sense.
He called me stupid, told me i lacked a high school education, blocked me from speaking on his channel and then deleted all his replies where he lost composure because he didnt have any explanation for the nonsense he was saying about the game. All the replies he made where he completely abandoned any semblence of discussion and devolved into childish insults were removed.
But the fromsoft fans are toxic... 🤦
I wont ever bother listening to what he has to say again. Youve given him more credit than he deserves by calling what he made a review or calling him a reviewer.
Hey I’ve read the affairs between you & him, he even did that to me, he deleted my replies to him where I ratioed him so hard, I don’t even get hostile at all, I like to keep it very respectful while being as impartial as I can, but he kept throwing ad-hominems at me all the time & hasn’t discussed my points at all.
He’s just a toxic person with an inflated ego. I thank you for your time in trying to deconstructing these “critics.”
Who the HELL is "feeble king?" I have literally never heard of him before this video.
@@SpoonyBard88 a guy who says he loves souls games but doesn't know how to play them
@@SpoonyBard88 Someone who likes to lie and contradict himself constantly. And no, this is no ad hominem, he actually says one thing, then changes his mind and then claims to have never said the first thing and that he never changes his mind.
@@HeyTarnished
Yeah, I've never seen you be toxic to anyone in any capacity... I didn't know he treated you that way that's kinda fucked TBH.
The “Gank Boss” at the end of the shadow of the erdtree DLC gives you the option to summon in the NPC’s you’ve befriended along the way. Which NPC’s you summon also change depending on how you interacted with the NPC’s in the world up until that point. Narratively this is the best NPC fight I think FromSoftware has ever done, and to reduce it to “just another gank fight” is both inaccurate because it doesn’t have to be 1 vs 3, but also ignores narratively what makes the fight so impactful
Nah that fight is ass
Would matter more if it wasn’t possible to break several NPC quests by walking too far in some directions.
@@ethanstanis5829how was it ass
@@jojameson5264 by this same logic, it matters less because you can fail npc quests. 2 of 5 won’t even show up if you don’t finish their quests. And neither of the summonable characters get their quests broken by fuckin walking somewhere.
You can literally turn that fight into a 5v5 if you use the Jolan and Anna ashes, by doing that you can also turn the fight into a 5v2 "reverse gank" if you just don't do any of the npc quests.
Really made me remember exactly why I grew to harbor such disdain for video critiques when I used to like watching them.
LOOPINE!!!! Found you! 😂❤
Thanks, legend.
What did you think of joseph andersons new dlc video?
Thanks for shouting out this great video in your community section on UA-cam Loopine! Probably wouldn't have known about it if you hadn't.
How? This one is such a sh*tshow that he can't even make he's point without misrepresenting others.
Thank you for the video, I am pretty much in full agreement! Initially I even groaned at the idea of watching a 2 hour video seemingly about Elden Ring DLC critique because I expected this to be exactly the type of video you're criticising, lol! Thankfully I watched it and I'm very happy for it, since it resonated with thoughts I've had about this for a while. Game critique of popular games has been so deeply poisoned on the internet that I am usually just indisposed to even engage with it, which is a terrible shame since I think there are so many interesting ideas we could be discussing about those games instead of what we usually get with those videos.
Amazing! Glad I brought you around and you ended up enjoying it.
I cannot tell you how unbelievably gratifying it is to finally hear so many of the frustrations I’ve felt this year following SoTE’s release put into words so succinctly. Fromsoftware is a beacon, they deserve better from their “critics”.
I'm grateful for this video. The pseudo-intellectual multi-hour UA-cam review-as-essay has been the worst trend in games criticism. It's the same material as we've always had, just stretched over hours and presented as well thought out by merit of being long. The irony of praising a video over 2 hours long isn't lost on me.
Also the Miyazaki misquote (fauxquote?) has annoyed me for years and I'm very glad you took the time to call it as such.
Also you're wrong about Nietszche, he wasn't a nihilist, he hated nihilism, his great life-long project was articulating the catastrophe that was nihilism in 19th Century Europe. He believed profoundly that life was and is meaningful, and that we have almost a moral duty to ourselves to be true to ourselves, so that our loves could be meaningful.
Your whole idea about him believing life was innately meaningless and that it becomes meaningful in self-overcoming is totally anathema, really, to what nietszche articulated throughout his works. I recommend reading anything from his middle period, eg the gay science, to get a better idea of what he really believed.
You're sort of correct when you say that Nietszche said that suffering creates meaning, but what he tended to say was actually that it made us more *interesting*. Nietszche believed that self-inflicted suffering was a major phase in the history of our psychological development, and associated it with Christianity. The geneaology of morality expounds on this.
Fun video, I'm glad you made it, it certainly made my chores more enjoyable. Sorry to jump down your throat, but i gotta protect my dude against misrepresentation.
It seems you're absolutely correct and I've fallen prey to what looks like a pretty common misconception about the man. I was basing my argument on an interpretation that is very likely flawed.
That being said, I still think my point in this section stands because:
a) Feeble still misquoted the man and didn't provide his sources.
b) My interpretation (while shallow and likely inaccurate to Nietzsche's authorial intent) is still a good analogy for the game.
I do appreciate you bringing it to my attention. I'll do more reading on Nietzsche. He's an interesting dude.
Heheh I'm a nietszche stan, i have no issue with your broader point at all lol
@GredGlintstone ❤
Really do appreciate the clarification. I'll put something in the pinned comment when I get a chance to get my facts straight and clear it up.
i like his piano stuff
isn't the remembrance that the putrescent knight drops, the reward for killing him.
Indeed, Feeble king is either disingenuous or dense.
@@TK_TK811 I'm thinking both. He comes off as a dumb guy with a big ego that's been made bigger by having a moderately-sized platform.
If you like a shxt spell or useless axe then yes
@@KNGDDDE Then eat it for runes dumbass
@migaeldewet6074 Well, it isn't if you refuse to try out a single weapon from the dlc, and it's useless to use it for runes since he claims he has already hit the soft caps for his stats(not true lol)
Regarding that bit at the end where you show that extremely rude response Joseph makes to that fan, I find it very concerning that at least 184 people looked at that and said "Yeah, that's a response I like, better go give it positive feedback."
To argue for the best fate interpretation possible, they may have just thought he was joking.
@@chaoticgoodcreations947 with how his reddit is, i can say with confidence that they werent. most of them display actual toxic positivity about joeseph anderson. if the witcher 3 video never comes out, they will still be waiting in bated breathe for it.
All e-celebs are in command of para-social cults. They are worse then the traditional company fanboys of old.
@@chaoticgoodcreations947 Even in the case it was a joke, it's still a blatantly horrible thing to say to someone
I wonder if you know "Beginners Guide".
If not then maybe playing it (or watching it, even on Joseph Anderson second channel) could actually help you understand the issue. Some "support" can be rude if person didn't ask for it, even worse when specifically said they don't want it - and it isn't new trope.
"Love isn't about ignoring something's faults, it's about loving it in spite of them."
This is why Drakengard is one of my favorite games. Sure it's monotonous and grindy and tonally hostile in every aspect. But I still love it. Hell, I love it FOR that. It is unapologetically itself, it is deranged and unhinged and wondrous for it.
As a fan of Joseph's videos, I thought I was going to disagree with a lot of the points from this video because I usually agree with him, but I was surprised to get a better understanding of Miyazaki's intent for the Souls series and see how so many UA-camrs misconstrue that design as just a way to demonstrate their own skills, that if they die, that's a failure on the game's part. Viewing the games as wanting the player to experiment with different playstyles because their first option may not work all the time makes a lot of sense and I'm surprised that Matthew's misinterpretation of that design influenced so many people, even many channels that I like.
I haven't seen Joe's video on Elden Ring because I haven't played the game yet (it sounds like a game I would absolutely love to play but there are so many games these days and I'm slowly appreciating older games from my backlog for now), but from what I hear, it's the kind of critique video that gives a disclaimer that it's his favorite game of all time, but then he spends hours focusing on negatives of the game. I don't think this style of video is bad entirely, I love playing games that stay in my mind so much that I have to seek every piece of information I can find on it (Dark Souls, The Last of Us, PT, Undertale, The Beginner's Guide, Hollow Knight, Celeste, Outer Wilds, etc etc), even including what other people dislike about it, but if that kind of video is the first experience someone has with a game, I can definitely see it negatively impacting their own impression of the game before they've even played it, which sucks for everyone in that situation; the person viewing, the uploader who thought he was doing a service for his favorite game, and the developers of the game because now they lost a potential player.
I can definitely understand the mindset behind it, "I love a game so much that I'm comfortable enough to deconstruct it and criticize it", but I wish videos gushing about good games trended more or played a bigger part in these critique videos. Maybe from their perspective, they wrote positive comments in their scripts but edited them out because it made the flow of the video weird. Maybe they know why they love a game and they feel like others feel that same way too so they don't feel it's necessary to bring up the positives. Maybe they read a negative comment on one of their last videos that stayed in their mind for so long they felt they needed to respond to it in a grand comprehensive way, when the commenter probably didn't think about it anymore after positing it. Most of these channels definitely want to be game designers, but hell, I would love to be a game designer too, so I can't fault them for thinking this will help them get to that point.
To give Joseph credit, he makes a big deal at the start of most of his videos that if you haven't played the game yet, stop the video now and do that as soon as you can, even giving some games multiple warnings since he knows there will be people that ignore that first warning but the game is really worth playing. Those disclaimers made me try so many different games that I would end up loving, so I really appreciate that.
I really agree that this style of video is becoming way overplayed now. For me it was new, interesting, and thought provoking when Matthew Matosis started it over decade ago, but now that there are hundreds of channels copying that style, either doing it worse or being far too negative, and that it's evolved over the years from 20-40 minute videos into 10+ hour videos, I've just started ignoring them more and more when they show up in my feed. A lot of these creators have the idea that if they keep adding to the length of the video, the more impressive it would look to their audience, but it just makes me think that the video will be bloated with unrelated side tangents or just be a complete retelling of the story. The Witcher 3 video has been Joseph's white whale for years, but I don't really care about The Witcher series, and I suspect that Joe stopped caring for the series too. At least, I hope he has. I don't want Joe to spend years on a project all about criticizing a 10 year old game that hundreds of other UA-camrs have already made multi-hour long critiques about. I'd rather watch him stream games for fun like Paper Mario or Kingdom Hearts or whatever other weeb games his audiences recommends him. I might have gotten tired of the essays, but his streams are always a lot of fun, and I think he knows that too considering he's only uploaded 3 videos on his main channel in the past four years, deleting his Patreon a few years back as well.
I could argue that you were a bit too harsh on him or other UA-camrs that make these style of videos (like Feeble, I don't know him but I don't want to assume he's a bad guy because I watched one video showing where he was wrong), we all make mistakes, we're all learning what works and what doesn't on UA-cam together, these creators aren't just single-minded video essay machines, etc, but on the other hand, this is giving these critique channels a taste of what they usually do to games, unrelentless criticism for art that was just intending to entertain. Maybe/hopefully this video will influence UA-camrs to focus on more positive and fun projects, rather than concentrating negativity.
It must be weird of me to leave a such an extensive comment on a review of a review of a review of a game I don't know much about, but the video isn't really about Elden Ring, it's about critique videos that I've watched hundreds of before, so I was invested the whole way through.
Sorry for the long stream of random thoughts. I thought this comment was going to be a paragraph long but I just kept writing.
Appreciate the thoughtful comment.
I was definitely harsh and I don't think they're bad guys. I just don't like what they're doing.
Really happy you approached it with an open mind as a Joe fan.
Whenever i think of Joseph Anderson responding to criticism, i remember how DangitJM made a fairly tame response to Joe's comments about unfair boss design of Margit, and Joe commented in the video before even watching; a bunch of arguments that werent being made, and then ended up saying "well i guess i just dont have a very good build" as a response in the comment chain to people summarizing the video as a response to the comment, as if that is somehow Fromsoftware's fault. Then i watched his Lies of P review where he praised the game for "listening to its fans" when they made a bunch of changes, then childishly said that thats how he knows it wasnt made by Fromsoftware, and i was like "oh. thats what this video is going to be about" and yeah
Omg I saw that comment and almost brought it up. That idea of "I haven't watched this yet but this is what I think it's about" is so weird. Just watch it lol. I hope this isn't how he plays games.
@@GredGlintstone some joe lore that i think humanizes him more in my eyes is how he has talked on his stream about how him and a bunch of other unpublished/selfpublished authors would write stories and post them to places like reddit to try and get feedback from each other. i think that thats how he's approaching his "critiques" and its very improv classroom, where you and your peers are trying to make a good joke to use at a standup setting or when writing for a sketch comedy group. There are so many differences between that and what he's doing from the fact that peer to peer critique is more personal and private and helps mainly because after you build some good rapport with your peers, they try to understand and work with you rather than just say what they dont like about your set.
@@AnInvalidEgg 100%, "Joe" very much sees saying that sort of stuff in that way as something very casual and very unproblematic, maybe due to how he used to talk a lot on writing forums like you said, and that kind of shaping how he goes about his casual criticisms on things.
I heard, so take it with a grain of salt, that he played Armored Core and absolutely refused to change his build. You know in the game where that is the whole appeal.
I do like his reviews generally, but some of his opinions seem really strange, like just criticism for the sake of criticism. I remember his Bloodborne review being more criticized than his reviews are now.
@@Romapolitan He did, and he did lol, I fucking love armored core and that really killed me whilst I watched him play it lol. It's just not his sort of game at all really, I think he may have said that whilst playing but I can't quite remember.
His perspective on it is that if it's so easy to switch and stumble into what works and what doesn't, and there are some weapons which are so much more viable than others to the extent it can trivialize the game, he'd rather just have the game give him a balanced experience in which he doesn't need to play a balancing game of a build being useable, and it being too good that the game becomes trivial, and that as that isn't the case and the customization isn't for him, that he'll just go with the first things he finds which work better than what he was using. He used dual Zimms lol.
I would just like to appreciate how somebody is finally using the posh British accent video essay voice for good instead of evil for once.
Haha, it's Australian but thanks for calling me posh. I feel so fancy.
@@MoreLoreThenThereSeems another British fellow who uses it for good is hbomber guy but he is a rare uploader. But a good one. Like the one time he made a whole channel or two built on stealing others work get thanos snapped. One of them faked their death and created a thirst account under a new name.
@@christianlangdon3766 oh yea I watch him! Already! So this is a good recommendation lol
@@christianlangdon3766
Hbomb doesn't sound posh, if anything because he screams so much it kinda loses the poshness.
Abigail from Philosophy Tube on the other hand... wow, NOW we're talking.
I’d rather have a British or an Aussie UA-camr narrate every video instead of hearing another guy from the Midwest with a nasally voice that you have to get used to after watching a WhiteLight video lol
I’m a huge Joseph Anderson fan (admittedly more his streams than his critiques) so I appreciate you giving all this feedback. At this point I’ve heard ‘subjective’ misused so much that I’ve gradually lost track of the meaning myself.
I also really enjoyed your point about gamers being so focused on the reward rather than the experience with visuals, sound and vibes. I admit I do like games being replayable once the first experience wears off, but FromSoft have always been good at finding a balance of both.
Yeah also loopine has a video saying critique’s deserve criticism to keep them in check, he was saying that because he was puzzled as to why Joseph Anderson gets a pass saying shit like “fromsoft have fell on their heads” and that they don’t know how to make bosses anymore, unfortunately I can’t remember the video so I can’t link it
Yeah, I've seen it. He's right!
@@GredGlintstone also, Aussie detected🇦🇺🫡
@@northwoodsjjd8454 apparently Mattosis gets a pass too, even to where he could be considered an authority when he's as fallible as the rest of us.
“Bad Criticism is Worse than Bad Art” is the video title :)
Lupine was so GOATED for those videos. Breaks them down and just corrects them lol.
Your conversation about rewards was very interesting. One review of SotE I watched was from a smaller creator, I can't remember their name, but I do remember some of their comments in regard to complaints about areas like Cerulean Coast and Charo's Hidden Grave. They suggested that we, as players familiar with open world games, often interpret emptier areas as automatically being 'bad'. We're used to the general norm of open worlds being cluttered and constantly giving us things to do and find, that an area deciding to use open space in a possibly more poignant sense registers as poorly made or having nothing to find. It really struck a chord with me, as has your video. I've been an ardent defender of the Consecrated Snowfield for this very reason. Sometimes it's just the atmosphere, the immersion of a wide-open yet well-hidden space that acts as its own reward.
I think it's fine to critique the more tangible rewards, of course. But I also think sometimes it's better to ask 'what is this area trying to do/make me feel?' as opposed to 'what does this area have that can personally benefit me?'
I agree. Empty space isn't useless. It serves a purpose.
There is "almost" nothing in Ash Lake, yet it stands tall as one of the more memorable places in the series!
Love how Miyazaki inherits Team Ico games' DNA and preserve these beautiful open spaces tradition in Elden Ring.
Now while that's all well and good, I still wish riding Torrent is more than just a "hold left stick" affair. These areas works much better when the traversal mechanic is also engaging, such as riding Agro in Shadow of the Colossus or the funky walking mechanic in Death Stranding.
Big open spaces _feels empty_ mostly because you can't really do much of anything in it. This is why I despise modern Assassin's Creed where traversal is mind-numbing, as opposed to the older games where you still have to activate neurons in your brain to navigate through the world.
You could look at this the opposite way. "What do I gain from spending an hour riding through a nearly empty area with reused enemies I don't get from fighting those same enemies else where already?" Games are about the gameplay and one of the biggest complaints about Elden ring is how empty or effectively empty the open world is. You just run past enemies to get to locations, so the DLC repeating it isn't what people were looking for. Especially not from a hidden area or multiple hidden areas reusing the same assets as is the case with the fingers. And while you may enjoy the scenary, there are players like myself who really wanted to see what the finger areas were about when we see them in the distance and we got nothing when we arrived there. There was nothing to do but run past enemies and bone out with the horn. But we didn't know that so we still spent time investigating. And then had to do it a second time.
You can say it made you feel something but feelings are so subjective you can't lean into them as a reason for content like this to be in the game. If people say "I don't want to eat more pasta" you can't say "but this pasta will make you feel something" and expect them to be happy when you shove more pasta in front of them. The DLC and base game suffer massively from the side of open areas and no meaningful way to engage with them. So making hard to reach secret areas double down on that thing was objectively a bad idea. If your player base complains about it and you repeat it several more times in something they're paying more for, you should expect them to be pissed off they didn't listen to your feedback.
@@FleshCloud-ey5ro you are also projecting your own feelings onto the game. Conversation is driven by feelings, there's no need to use "objective" jargon.
Thank god finally someone speaks about the shit of online """"critics"""" thinking they know how an artpiece would be better. Yes, artist, allow me- internet rando No.2000- to tell YOU how YOUR art can be best without bothering to know or care about what YOUR intention with it was, I am very smart.
And then a bunch of people who have never engaged with the artpiece parrot the points around and it makes talking about the artpiece impossible because how DARE you not mention Literally Every Single Flaw It Has Ever while making a twitter post abt how much you like the design of a character or something like that.
Bad Faith Criticism has made fandoms 300 times more toxic because people INSIST that you HAVE to be negative to be "fair" about the artpiece, and as such it creates a hostile environment when ppl perma-fight over their opinions because not doing so risks an idea spreading so far that it can actually lead to harassment and hate to the artists.
Cartoon fandoms have this massive issue bc the amount of UA-cam video essays that actually give a fuck about the artistry of animation besides whatever Disney and Dreamworks movie is out are actually very slim. Entire creators have had to delete their social media and not interact with fans anymore bc of genuine hate because doing an artpiece that isn't perfect is now some sort of sin, is infuriating.
There are a ton of "very serious game critics" who are constantly bemoaning the inflammatory discussion surrounding their writing, but nearly without exception the uproar is invited because their work is actually the lowest rung of possible critique (essentially a product review). The problem they seem incapable of diagnosing, is that no matter how flowery your prose is, or how close to the 6 hour mark you get, that doesn't mean the actual content of the writing is anything other than a rather simple 'value judgement' (used in the critical definition, not the moral definition).
So the problem becomes that the most interesting thing you can say in response to a video like Joseph Anderson, or Ratatoskr (who despite your pinned comment, is guilty of this type of discourse) is "I think your value judgement is wrong". This is why so many of these types of works have entire sections addressing the audience with: "you're allowed to disagree, but please behave". Or in the latter's case "I'll probably piss you off, so be sure to dislike this video and argue in the comments".
These disclaimers can't generate a theoretical "ideal discussion" around their "critique" because the critic himself has failed to write anything that has a primary quality more complex than "this is good or bad imo"-- and thus the response can only be "thank you for agreeing with me," or "nuh-uh". It's like laying out honey and then becoming cutely exasperated that you caught flies.
The root of this mistake is deciding: "this is what I thought this artwork should be," and then structuring the critique by analyzing the distance between what [was] and what the writer [imagined it should've been.]
Next time you watch a game critique, notice how much the critic is actually addressing the game itself, VERSUS, how much time is spent using an imaginary ruler to compare the game that exists in the writer's imagination to the actual work. In some essay critiques, this is upwards of 90% of their content. Now, this is typical of a product review (you are evaluating a purchase for other customers, and an imaginary "ideal product" is something you need to assume is possible-- but this is not serious criticism, it's an economic service).
Instead, (and this is the proper job of criticism)-- a more interesting critique can always be achieved by analyzing what [was] and what [happened because of that.] All serious works of critique developed in the western canon (that have value on their own) possess it because the writer sought to understand and perform a taxonomy on the work's entire shape, rather than dressing up an IGN review in big-boy clothes and pretending it's a scholarly work.
JA is actually just ignorant on a base level because he's under the delusion that a critic's job is to "make the work better"-- and in order to refute him, I'll just quote Northrup Frye because it's way easier:
"Value-judgements are subjective in the sense that they can be indirectly but not directly communicated. When they are fashionable or generally accepted, they look objective, but that is all. The demonstrable value-judgement is the donkey's carrot of literary criticism, and every new critical fashion, such as the current fashion for elaborate rhetorical analysis, has been accompanied by a belief that criticism has finally devised a definitive technique for separating the excellent from the less excellent. But this always turns out to be an illusion of the history of taste."
In any case, the idea that something could in any way be "flawless" is a critical void, so we can extend from that that the analysis of "flaws" compared to "triumphs" is at best a starting point for a real critique, rather than the end goal. To continue to reference Frye, imagine if "Fearful Symmetry" was 300 pages of him talking about the "flaws" of William Blake's poetry and comparing them to the "triumphs" of it-- it would be completely infantile.
This is a great comment. Well articulated.
I'm currently working on a script that speaks a little on this. The appreciation of art goes beyond value judgment. Internet discussion can be so much more than arguing over if something is "mid" or not..
I want to talk about feelings. I want to talk about meaning. I need heart.
@@GredGlintstone it's a topic I feel needs to be covered by someone! You should check out the book "Anatomy of Criticism" and at least read the polemical introduction, which is the first chapter. I feel like the discourse it goes through there is exactly what you'd be interested in.
I will! Thanks!
Nevermind I understand what you meant now I deleted the comment
you put into words what i couldn't for a long time, thank you.
This video is very important, i really hope it gets traction
Very important video, I hope it trends. You gave much clearer words to describe my frustration with so many UA-cam video game criticisers. The script was also well-written, with great word choice and acknowledgment of subjectivity/objectivity! I have never played Elden Ring or any Dark Souls game, but your points got across to me very well.
My god this has to be my favourite video on this entire website. Its been a trend for years to only talk about the negatives of a game and I never understood why anyone who enjoys games would ever feel satisfied creating something like that. Aside from the obvious fact that negative content performs better in YT. Either way i really hope this video gets a lot of eyes kn it because i really believe that gaming discourse and critique needs to change
Nothing wrong with honest negative videos, this video isn't even advocating for less negative videos. They're fun (especially when it's short and to the point) and are sometimes meaningful and insightful. Only talking about the negatives is not inherently a bad thing, ironically enough.
What's wrong from Joseph Anderson-styled video is that they're claiming to be a balanced critique when it's really not, say that the game is good (masterpiece, even) but spends the majority of the video on the game's flaws that may or may not be true, and then went self-victim mode when they get totally deserved criticisms.
Sometimes it's because of frustration, for example pokemon
Pokemon fans are so tired of the downwards trend in quality of the games ever since gen 6 that released more than 10 years ago
Gen 6 was decent, ORAS was good, gen 7 was a breath of fresh air with new systems, but the constant hand holding soured the experience, also didn't help that USUM was just the original SM but with a slightly revamped story, so you ended up buying a whole new game for little extra content. Then sword and shield released and was super disappointing for the first switch title, legends arceus was another breath of fresh air but underdeveloped, then gen 9 came out as the first big open world pokemon game, however the open world design with gyms and other challenges not accomodating to your level, so the difficulty of your playthrough could vary a lot if you didn't follow the pre determined path of a supposed open world game
All these pokemon games have their positives and negatives and while gen 9 is definitely better and a step forward compared to gen 8, it doesn't change the fact that pokemon fans have been hopeful that the games would capture the essence of the first 6 gens, gen 4 and 5 especially sense those had a pretty good narrative, gen 6 had the novelty of 3d graphics and mega evolution, legends arceus the novelty of a more action combat gameplay in addition to slightly revamped turn based combat, but other than those games, no pokemon game really comes close to doing something new or groundbreaking for the series
That's kinda why I think we love to point out negatives, to show what could be changed, however we should also point out positives to show what should be kept, for example the constant praise gen 4 and 5 get to their story or gen 6 with the mega evolution mechanic, or legends arceus with the catching pokemon on the field, without entering combat with them
@@pralenkaman8105 the thing is that modern pokemon DOES capture the "essence" of the old games, which is something the community forgets. Pokemon is a customizable pet raising rpg like it has always been, and it has always been fantastic and special in that regard. That is not changed by a national dex, or battle frontier, which is partially why those features were chosen for the chopping block in the first place. The issue is that gamefreak has to balance quality with ambition in a realm where many other games can beat them in both. It's not necessarily a downward trend of quality, but a relocation of an already mediocre quality.
Ya I 100% agree, I don't want fluff positive critics but honestly there isn't much to complain about Elden Ring other than performance. Same thing happened in the Zelda community, for some reason most of the essay videos on Tears Of The Kingdom are all negative. Despite it being one of the best games and a masterpiece in the medium. Most of the critics were just nitpicking small points and basically ignoring all the good stuff which makes your essay look way too biased .
@@tamim3319 to be fair, and I'm not saying tear of the kingdom is a bad game, far from it, but the game did plenty wrong
The underground is very empty, with little to do besides getting armor that isn't even new, most armor in the underground is the dlc armors from breath of the wild. Other than that, all the underground has to offer is zonyte to build vehicles and po souls to use at po statues, there's little side quests there besides the master kogha ones and the spirit temple one too
Then there's the overworld that's pretty much the same as it was in breath of the wild, yes the major regions are changed slightly, but they return to normal once you defeat the temple's boss
Then there's the sky islands, which are cool, but very far between and some of them are very.... VERY small, others are copy paste puzzles, which is understandable, open world and all, but still very unfortunate due to how few there are
Of course there's also the stiry which doesn't take in considerstion what happened in breath of the wild.... but at the same time it does? Like it's very inconsistent, the champions of each region know who you are, but then some other villages like kakariko, people don't even recognize you as the co-owner of what is now zelda's house, even though you're the guy that helped rebuild that house and that side quest is canon due to terry town existing, this game is very inconsistent with its narrative
Now I want to say it again, tears of the kingdom is an amazing game, I definitely had my fun with its mechanics, the vehicles were fun and made exploration feel much better, even with the reuse of the open world there were still some fun mysteries like the whereabouts of zelda and the master sword, the dungeons were a breath of fresh air and the fuse mechanic made fighting higher tier enemies actually worthwhile
This game is great and it can be even greater... if you haven't ayed breath of the wild, because its biggest hinderence is the exploration being too familiar to its predecessor
I knew something was up with the latest Joseph Anderson video when most of the intro was him half jokingly explaining delusions of grandeur and railing on the souls community.
Glad I wasn't the only one who thought it.
tony4you spotted!!!
On the whole subjectivity/objectivity thing, as something that's always bothered me about how people with little philosophical literacy talk about such things:
Subjectivity is only implied when a statement is in regards to something that cannot be anything other than subjective.
If a person says, "(I think) chocolate tastes better than strawberry ice cream(in my opinion)", even if they were to drop the linguistic markers of subjectivity, we recognize the subjectivity because it isn't clear in what sense a thing could taste better(a qualic feature of the subjective experience) than another in objective terms.
However, most statements are not, in fact, clearly subjective. They're composite statements, consisting of part empirical observations/claims, syllogistic features(A and B, therefore C etc), and value judgements(reports of subjective experience), and as such, are prone to being wrong on levels of the empirical claims or reasoning regardless the subjective elements.
If a person says, "In Norway, people have long holidays and a relaxed work culture, therefore (I think) Norwegians are more happy," that's not "just an opinion", and, if someone were to question whether Norwegians do in fact have long vacations and a relaxed work culture, or how that entails happiness, no-one gets to just dismiss that with some vacuous appeal to opinion or subjectivity.
Almost every statement that comes out the mouth of critics(and indeed most people in general) are synthetic, and therefore subject to possible errors of judgement worthy of scrutiny and critique. Using appeals to opinion or subjectivity to obfuscate that or reject criticism is disingenuous and/or displays a fundamental lack of understanding of rhetoric and linguistics.
To be fair though, some of this probably comes from the fact that the word "opinion" itself isn't used in a particularly narrow and clear fashion.
Fundamentally, we should probably only refer to subjective value judgements as "opinions", but we do not, except when disingenuously trying to defend faulty statements from critique. The aforementioned synthetic statements are regularly referred to as "opinions". But, if we accept them as such, then opinions aren't merely subjective statements and as such, the delineation between them and empirical claims in general is meaningless.
On a related note on language, and a tiny nit-pick:
There's no such thing as a "wrong fact" or "incorrect fact". That's oxymoronic. Either something is a fact, or it isn't. A "wrong fact" is just a false claim or error =P
Great comment and well spoken. You've said a lot of things here that I struggled to.
Very valid nit pick. I really debated what terminology to use there. The intention was to show that they are not opinions because they can be verified and are just objectively wrong, not subjective. But you said it better than I did.
@@GredGlintstone
No worries. I think you got the point across and I was just very enthused to see one more person in this space actually adress it, because damn it, has it become common for people to use "opinion" as a shield for their faulty logic or dubious factual claims.
The nit-pick was mostly facetious 😅
The problem is that most people don't utilize the higher parts of the mind; all they know of "thinking," is simply opinions about feelings they have and nothing deeper.
I call people out for hiding behind "it's just my opinion" or "it's subjective" all the time. You can't say "the way the artist used the color blue in this painting is bad," and then say "that's just my opinion". You made a statement, either delve deeper into the facts of the matter and (at least attempt to) make a definitive statement about how they used blue, or say "I think" or "I feel". Maybe the blue clashes with other colors and detracts from the rest of the image, then say that. It's not that hard.
It seems that a far more acceptable title would simply be "My thoughts on Elden Ring: Shadow of the Erdtree" if all they're gonna do is say it's their opinion when they feel as if they're going to be challenged on certain points lol.
"Maybe it's just me but I feel as if x is overtuned in terms of difficulty" is much better wording if you're not interested in being challenged. It may also invite likeminded people to comment "It isn't just you, I thought that too" rather than having arguments about what is considered good game design and how the uploader actually sucks at video games therefore their critique is invalid.
Holy fuck some people are too smart to be dumb right?
😂
After watching some of Loopine's videos around the same topic regarding Feeble King and others, seeing this video in my recommendations and giving it a watch has truly vindicated my entire mindset about these sorts of creators. I remember giving both Anderson and Feeble's videos a watch when Elden Ring released, fully believing most of what they talked about, buying into pretty much all of it. As a new fan to these games because of Elden Ring back then, I didn't think much of it, but these last 2 years and the release of the DLC really opened my eyes as to just how awful so many online self-proclaimed "game critics" are at critique. Honestly, the problem extends outside video games as well, as other media are plagued by very similar bad faith or terrible critics, and this topic could've extended far beyond just the extent of Elden Ring and Soulslikes in general. The entire landscape of online media "critique" has been, in my opinion, over saturated with individuals just like Anderson and Feeble. Bad at proper critique, negativity centered, and filled with lies, disingenuous arguments, or hypocritical statements.
Honestly, the moment that broke me more than anything was Feeble's DLC video and his disregard for getting to see St. Trina, and saying the "real" reward was just a cookbook. As someone who loves the lore of Elden Ring, that blatant hand waving away of one of the game's most important and enigmatic characters in the lore felt, to me, more disrespectful to the people who worked on the DLC than just calling them lazy. Calling them "absurdly lazy" is one thing, but to do that, not even acknowledging the artistry of her design, the somber music, the revelation of getting to see someone the community had been speculating about for over 2 years, not even a passing mention of her was a more direct level of disrespect that showed, right then and there, how shameless his "critique" was.
Edit: misspelled "Loopine"
I loved reading through your comment, I agree with everything, don’t worry, there are a lot of people like me and you who appreciate the game’s artistry while not being too negative, Elden Ring with its DLC is my favorite game of all time and I’m a huge Soulsborne guy that has been playing their games for years now.
On "oversaturation of ... negativity ...": Negativity sells, and UA-cam becoming a viable source of income for many these days may have played into that. I don't have any scientific sources rn but I'm confident enough that we can find papers on that easily, since drama and outrage has been a mainstream media staple for long. Just from a layman's perspective, videos that take a negative approach almost always has a higher view count than the positive ones. Channels like CinemaSins took advantage of this to great effect. Heck, the 2 videos on Gred's channel that blew up are discussing destructive behavior, and I only have found him because of this video.
But yeah, I think humanity could benefit from a bigger push on focusing on the 'wins'. I make a habit of praising independent authors' (whether that's a musician, artist, game developer, or challenge-runner matters not) work, articulating details that they've clearly put effort in, etc. What they're doing is usually thankless and speaking of experience, one single thought-out compliment/constructive critique can mean a lot.
Feeble and many others (like myself) don’t care about the lore. There isn’t a good gameplay reward for defeating that boss. Someone whose experience is far more gameplay centric would of course have that opinion.
@@pphaver871 Yet there is a gameplay reward. The boss's remembrance which gives you either its weapon or a sorcery, runes to be used for whatever purpose you want, access to the rest of St. Trina's quest which gives you more item rewards, and the cookbook which gives you access to new crafting items. Whether or not you deem that as "good gameplay rewards" is entirely up to personal opinion, but it's still rewards for defeating the boss.
@@Stellos812 I’d say a secret area that leads to Stone Coffin Fissure, which is a moderately-sized level, that has unique enemies with unique discoverable weapons (St. Trina eternal sleep sword), plus a huge remembrance boss, a number of cookbooks, more Scadutree fragments, and a big lore revelation that solves a questline is probably the best instance of rewarding exploration I’ve ever seen in any Souls game, including Elden Ring itself, a game which excels at exploration & rewarding the player.
It’s really funny with the way some on here come about this, since when did Souls games ever give you as much rewards as Elden Ring? Bloodborne when you beat Orphan of Kos, what the heck did they give you as a reward? Nothing, just a trash useless weapon “Kos Parasite”, what did DS3 give you after beating Sister Friede, just her Soul that gives you her weapon, nothing else. What did the game give you after beating Midir? Just his soul, that’s it, you fall down a big hole and you find him, that’s it lol. And Orphan of Kos & Sister Friede are part of the main path, Putrescent Knight is a FREAKING SIDE path, and it gives you more rewards than the main course in Bloodborne & Dark Souls 3. 😭😭
I can go on and on…
This is a video actually worthy of its 2 hour length. Thats very rare
So glad you think so. I really tried to cut it down.
@@GredGlintstone and im the type of person to watch stuff on 3.5x speed, but i slowed down to 1x on this video
I was honestly wishing it was another 30mins to an hour lol
Every now and then a vudeo comes along that really makes me question what i used to get out of my old habits and really creates a mental shift towards being a better person ..this us ine of those, thanks so much for the experience and for giving me the chance to learn ❤
Truth be told, I've had a difficult time connecting with how Joe approaches his views on games and media as a whole for years. I've found it challenging to find that he appreciates games at all with his laundry lists of complaints and jabs of everything that he looks at like he's a mechanic working on my crappy car. I have found that over my time listening to essays on this platform that the writers that stick with me the most are those who speak from the love of their subjects. I will always first think of the Jon Bois' and the Jacob Gellers of creative non-fiction that are looking to bring deeply interesting topics to our attention over long form criticism that often fails to speak of any passion other than hatred.
This video has been saying what I've been feeling for years, I can't thank you enough. I too hope that people will more openly talk about how media truly makes them feel and free themselves from being algorithm beasts. Well done, I hope to hear you speak from love soon.
If you want a youtuber, who only talks about things he loves in video games, i recommend RagnarRox
To even begin to equate what Joe does with "hatred" is bafflingly hyperbolic and inappropriate. I've been watching Joe for years (er, I mean when he was still regularly putting out videos), and I've always been able to sense his passion and love of the medium. He just biases towards what he feels are design flaws/incohesion.
To compare him to Jacob Geller is also thoroughly bizarre, given they're so wildly different. No one goes to Joe for arty existential musings, and no one goes to Jacob for analysis of frame timing and mechanics execution. They're both great at very different things.
@@SabiJD >no one goes to Jacob for analysis of frame timing and mechanics execution. They're both great at very different things.
What are you actually talking about here? You realize that this implies that Joes is good analyzing frame timing and mechanics, when one of the main things shown at the start of this video is that he is actually not good at that? If that wasn't your intention why not just say what Joe is actually good at and what people watch him for.
@@AceKuper So the fact that Joe was off by, what, 13 frames in one example in Elden Ring disproves all his examples of combat design in, say, a God Of War video? Don't be ridiculous. I love both creators (Joe and Jacob), but they're not even close to comparable, and gaming culture benefits from having both.
@@SabiJDwahhhh wahhhhh wahhhh
This DLC has exposed so much broken thinking from these UA-cam critics, Im grateful a video like this can come from it
It’s almost as if these UA-camr “critique” channels were waiting to absolutely eviscerate & tear this DLC apart only for UA-cam engagement, it was really obvious, Feeble’s video came out less than 2 weeks after the DLC’s release, he was even inadvertently saying that playing through & finishing the DLC felt like a job, gee I wonder why lol. 😝
@@HeyTarnishedyeah , i think their criticisms a lot of the time are terrible especially since as someone looking to get into game design i have been reading / watching a lot of different people and it's always good to see different perspectives, but videos like those just seem snobish / nit picky / hostile / sometimes just plain wrong and then hiding behind the it's subjective guys ( or even when it's positive it's not very useful for someone wanting to learn and understand games )
@@lynackhilou4865
You and me both
@@lynackhilou4865 Yeah I get it, the gaming communities can get pretty weird & aggressive at times, it's scary to even think of designing video games or coming up with great games when games like Elden Ring & Zelda TOTK (2 of the best games of this decade) are getting torn apart by many UA-camrs that want engagement farming, when in reality, millions of players are enjoying their games & these 2 games are always in their list of best games of all time (Elden Ring is my favorite game of all time).
@@HeyTarnished finally someone has some empathy towards devs. Unfortunately the zelda dev teams were pressured by the criticism that there latest title "echoes of wisdom" brought back a lot of classic zelda elements to please the toxic older fans. Although echoes of wisdom does a great job at blending new and old zelda some of it still feels forced and I think the toxicity of the old zelda fanbase is the blame.
My hot take I guess is that I don't think anybody has ever actually had their opinion changed by a review or essay. Not when it comes to things like a game and whether said game is any "good", at least.
People just value reviews because it gives them the rhetorical tools to better explain their own feelings. They have already reached a conclusion as a result of having experienced the game, they just want somebody to offer an explanation as to HOW that conclusion was reached.
It's why I think arguing the nitty gritty details of a popular review's argument is a bit futile, as it's making the mistaken assumption that the viewers who agree with the opinions being expressed only do so on the condition that said opinion is wholly factual. Which just isn't the case, more often than not. People echo the sentiment because they share that sentiment.
Look no further than this video's comment section, where replies range from counter-arguments from those clearly unmoved to people feeling like they've finally been seen because somebody has made an essay that validates their own feelings.
You cant logic somebody out of position if logic didn't place them there in the first place, after all. Which is not to say that any one side is the "logical" one here, as art and what art means to you isn't really something you're meant to view through a purely "logical" lens.
I'm also not even really accusing you of believing you can change people's minds or anything, this is just something I've been thinking about a lot whenever I started seeing these back and forths about Elden Ring.
100% agree. I think you can have your opinion changed but you can't make someone "like" something by convincing them it's good or "dislike" something by convincing them it's bad. Thinking of making a video about it. It's why the discourse is so toxic. People are trying to win a war of objective truth about art which is impossible.
@@GredGlintstone Part of why I personally like Joe's videos so much is that I disagree with him often, but he explains his own feelings and their roots in the game very effectively. Sometimes I agree with all or nearly all of his points and felt the same things he did, those thoughts were just overshadowed by elements I enjoyed to result in a more positive overall experience . His BotW review, for example, hits on basically every criticism I have of the game, but the parts of the game I enjoy outshine those criticisms so thoroughly and are so unique to BotW and the games that have been inspired by it that it is still one of my favorite games.
"You cant logic somebody out of position if logic didn't place them there in the first place, after all"
This line is so good man. This applies to almost everything, not only video games.
Wow. I waded into this little idea of the direction that the video would take, honestly there was a point where I was skeptical that a commentary on a commentary's commentary would have much to say. Instead I have been blown away by how this video has been equally insightful and challenging but beautiful to experience. So thank you for that, I hope this video has been meaningful for you to make.
Also the "Womb to tomb" line is an absolute banger.
1:30:24
"The only meaningful difference between most songs is the notes, the note order, how long they're played, and the tempo"
One of my favorite parts about SotE was the weapon variety and the fact that I could so easily level them up to 19 or 20ish. I used a dex build and I swapped constantly between the new dual backhand swords, a twinblade, a katana, and a great katana. I was having a blast and each weapon felt completely different
the only difference between you and the sun is atomic composition. so, pretty much the same thing.
Feel like so many of these outrage bait gaming channels don't actually like games that much. They're actively hurting the games community with such hyperinflated, unreasonable reactions - roast comedy is the perfect description for what they do, but when it's dressed up as 'serious games critique' their cruel opinions absolutely get reflected back into broader gaming culture as a whole. As a dev it is fucking exhausting, and you constantly fear having the crosshair pointed at you.
My problem with the Elden Ring DLC cook books is that I think there were just too damn many of them. Nearly every single one only unlocked only one single new item to craft; if you cut the number of cook books in half and made every book give you a couple items instead of only one, it wouldn't be quite so noticeable.
I don't think this would be a bad idea. I think it would also be a good idea if the item description told you where exactly you got that cookbook.
@SpoonyBard88 they do, you have to open up the description to see what it gives you.
Edit: replied to the wrong thing
@@spub1031 His comment mentioned the location of each book, not the recipe you get
@@draskirondaar ah mb.thanks for the correction
As I'm listening to this video I keep thinking back to Joseph Anderson's Lies of P video where he constantly makes asides with saying how "embarrassed" he is that he keeps praising the game and even admits he doesn't like the format where he pulls the "criticism trigger" for more than half the runtime. I think that really makes me think you have a serious point with all this.
This is a much needed lesson in critical thinking. I will now parrot all thy opinions, instead of Joseph Anderson’s, as mine own, Master Glintstone 🙏🏻
hahaha thanks dude
I also want to mention that after awhile I just stopped caring about critique videos. I don't really care what other people think but the thing that worries me is these people negatively impacting the developers. So I think it is still important to call out people with a big influence like Joseph Anderson.
Don't you trust developers to know what is good or bad for their game, and to be able to say if they agree with a critique or not? Individual critiques are not what change follow up games or creative projects, it's the general community opinion and takes more than anything else that can change a game for the worse, and have the most power to change a game end of.
@@repnir7428 People can be swayed really easily these days and developers will be forced to listen to them. They have to create games that they are less passionate about. Maybe fromsoftware isn't one of those devs because since the beginning they've been criticized heavily but they still kept on doing their thing. It's the indies I'm worried about.
I've always wanted to create my game but my biggest fear is that people will start hating it and specifically the parts that I loved about it. So either I have to remove the parts of the game I loved or ignore the hate. People have a have time accepting that if they don't like something doesn't mean its bad.
With people like Joseph Anderson, being able to sway the population into his opinion, out there it just scares me.
why tf would the devs care, they already have a cult like fanbase that calls every tiny thing that comes out of the company peak, we need more of these critical youtubers who actually use their brains and arent biased
@@SuleX00-ov5ip "I've always wanted to create my game but my biggest fear is that people will start hating it and specifically the parts that I loved about it."
That's the nature of making any creative work, it's unavoidable. Only advice you'll really get about that worry from other creatives is that you just need to put up with it, or ignore it. Either way the answer is a different variation of just toughen up unfortunately.
Also, just remember, you never make your dream project as your first project.
@@repnir7428 thank you
I'm pretty disenchanted by the negativity pervasive in media critique. Why aren't more video essayists articulating why they love the media that grabs them? Don't we all want to better understand all the subtleties and patterns that supported an authentic catharsis? It's frankly more fulfilling to make a case for why something activates your passion than your rage, and audiences do show up for it. The catch; I think honest, positive critique requires a greater level of vulnerability than constructive/destructive criticism, and *some* creators just don't want to be vulnerable. I'va also gotta figure it's just more profitable to be destructive.
I worry people growing up on this style of "critique" will come to believe that greatness rests in the absence of things to criticize. I worry "constructive" criticism is going to inhibit the ambition of creatives and their publishers.
About the end. It is kind of sad that Joe had to create strawmans in that reddit post to subvert his own created deadline that no one in any seriousness was holding him to.
Oh. My. God! The "Why Don't You Want Games To Be Good?" part of your video was the nail on the head for me, it's like a hammer hitting the nail in the most satisfying way, oh it was too good, you literally took the words out of my brain & spit it out to your Microphone into an editing software, into a video & finally uploaded it to UA-cam. So satisfying to hear that from another person. I was screaming "EXACTLY" I even clapped a couple of times. Absolutely phenomenal, thank you so much! Also "The EXPLOSION" part was also fantastic & hit the right notes while being respectful too. I just finished the video.
Before I end my comment, there's one thing that Feeble said in his 1st video about SOTE & it was this point about game difficulty:
“Hard doesn’t & has never equated to good game design.”
He brought the “hard” concept in a vacuum, stripped out of its influence on game design intrinsically, OK if that’s the case, let’s bring a game that he adores (Sekiro), let’s make it a much easier & forgiving game, because hey, since the “hard” part of the game isn’t what made it good, let’s make enemy attacks slower, let’s make the player not die after 2-3 hits, let it be after 10 or 15 hits, let’s make Genichiro or Sword Saint Isshin have less complex combo strings, less weird timings, less delays, surely that’ll make it easier, but will that equate to a better designed game? Or a more “fun” game? No, it does not IMO & I for dang sure not in his opinion nor the majority, now the game doesn’t require enough understanding of its mechanics, there’s no reason to feel any threat or respect to its rules, there’s not much rewarding feeling afterwards, now combos are much more simpler & the rhythm has been decreased dramatically, so we stripped the “hard” part now and this is what we get, a much simpler game, surely “less than average” players will enjoy it without finding much hardships or frustration like with his Mario Lost Levels VS Mario Bros example, a lot of the “fun” that come from FromSoft's games is through their mechanics & recognizing patterns & using the player's mechanics in order to overcome those, both have to be congruent, you can't move really fast in Sekiro while every other enemy & boss are much slower than you or have very simple combos, this is what makes them fun & hard (whoa that sounded suggestive 😅), overcoming adversity & hardships is what makes you feel rewarded.
And I like how he took the OG Mario Bros & said it’s better for the majority, he counted that as a positive, but From Software’s games have never been for the majority, in fact, the harder they get, the more people they brought, so this throws a big curveball to his argument fundamentally, just look at DS3, BB & Sekiro sales, they're higher & more popular than Demon's Souls, DS1 & DS2, and this supposed “hard” DLC sold 5 million units in a week, so people enjoy the difficulty & overcoming adversity? Or they shouldn't because that will make them "toxic" when they disagree with you, Feeble...🤣😭
So glad you dug it.
I almost brought up that Mario point. So bizarre. Mario is not made for the same demographic as the Souls series lol
I'd argue ds2 and ds3 are about similar difficulty wise, they just express the difficulty differently, and i wouldn't really be able to say i like either significantly more
I have had this exact same thought for a while now as someone who listens to game critics as sort of a podcast. I really like how you made your points, I subbed instantly!
You are points apply to almost all of them. Heck it's not even Fromsoftware games, like the Zelda community has had some big critic videos with the same issues. They basically nitpick every small detail that is negative but forget the art, the amount of amazing mechanics and pretty much everything that is good. Usually they will give 5-10 minutes for the pros and the rest of the video is just low effort "criticism".
I have been watching a lot of negative critiques for the game for a while now, and I always had problems with them. but I could never put my finger on it. You basically laid out all the problems i had with them that i wasnt even fully aware of. well done!
One aspect of criticism that I've seen of the DLC that rubbed me the wrong way was the "Marvel Expectations" that a lot of creators had about the dlc.
So many of them were so excited for the DLC not as the next chapter/conclusion of the story of Elden Ring but because it could fill a wishlist of seeing their favorite lore characters finally be someone that they could meet (and probably battle). This isn't bad to want but when you don't get your fan fiction come true you can't just get pissed that From Soft didn't include a character thet you placed too much importance over their actual relevance to the story. This goes especially for Godwyn, The Gloam Eyed Queen, and Melina because there was some genuine rage from the fans that they weren't given entire textbooks of lore in the DLC despite just not being as relevant as theh thought. Of course we're not going to bring up the entire encyclopedia of single mention Dark Souls, Bloodborne, or Sekiro characters because this is totally the first time FS hasn't followed up on a character's story *cough* Velka *cough*. I distinctly remember Ziostorm breaking down the design of the curseblades when they were first teased and he kept relating their design back to Godwyn despite them not remotely being related lore-wise now that the DLC is out. Im not saying that people can't have theories and speculation but I'm so tired that fandoms will now treat theories and speculation as gospel even if it goes against actual cannon, I like Vaati as much as the next guy but he shouldn't be treated as fact just because he's the most popular.
And what pisses me off the most about this is that the story of Elden Ring as we know it was only 1/3rd of the way uncovered and was still being pieced together a while after the game came out but a ton of people looked at the DLC lore for like a week to put everything together, made their lore videos and called it a day and then complained that it was "too shallow". I'm still mad about a post I made on a forum trying to discuss some of the thematic and lore implications of the Final Boss of the DLC but because the final boss was considered "bad" I got a bunch of responses telling me that it "wasn't that deep" and I was "coping on a meta level", when the entire point of the vagueness of souls games is about the speculation and themes of the game itself (TBF some sections of the ER lore community are so media comprehension starved that they thought the genocide of the Hornsent and their culture was completely justified). Someone made an entire video essay diving into the color symbolism of Elden Ring but it's crazy to think that FS may have put more than five minutes of thought into the final boss of the DLC even if the choice of boss wasn't 100% agreed with by everyone in the community.
@@anonisnoone6125 No, no. Calling the lore lackluster after not exploring it is not valid, it's just being impatient. You know one thing I heard back in 2022? that ER itself had lackluster lore. Now that 2 years have passed it's just the DLC that failed to provide. It's cyclical, people are impatient and take their visceral reaction to things as the absolute truth, then it's left for the actual lore channels to explore it and suddenly things change.
I'm new to this community but apparently this cycle is old enough that it also happened in Dark Souls 3.
@@DanielFerreira-ez8qd one of the most cited reasons for the dlc's lore being "bad" is that Radahn being Miquella's consort doesn't make sense because if Radahn likes killing things why is he siding with a supposed god of peace. The explanation is incredibly obvious. The npc that said "Radahn only likes killing things" is wrong. (It's her word against Jarren's and Jarren is much more trustworthy)(also her loyalty is to Miquella, not Radahn, and she's trying to justify Miquella's actions in reviving Radahn). Radahn is siding with Miquella because he can act as a protector of the realm, similar to his idol Godfrey. More importantly, Marika had her share of enemies and she was backed by the creator of the universe. Miquella is going to have enemies and he knows it because the history of the Lands Between is a circle.
More importantly, this is entirely happening because the community doesn't want to see Radahn as anything less than a hero.
@@puncherofbread That cited reason has a very easy explanation - Radahn's consent is entitely a mystery.
He wasn't in on this vow entirely willing - he had to die for it, for one, but for another - Miquella is the damn demigod of charm, he has pulled stunts like this several times over, in the basegame alone.
@@DanielFerreira-ez8qd I always thought it was clear that Radahn rejected Miquella's offer to be his lord. The memory we see at the end of the fight is Radahn's with miquella talking to him. He tells him that he's going to become a god and begs for Radahn to be his consort, in which nothing is said. Radahn rejected Miquella, and his charm (which the boss armor talks about). Miquella was obsessed with Radahn and would do anything to have him, going so far as to have Malenia suicide bomb him. Once Radahn was dead Miquella can put his soul into a body that was already charmed and control him like he's always wanted. Everything Radahn does from halting his own fate with the stars, refusing to die in Caelid, and his ideology points towards Radahn being forced into the role against his will.
This is all just one possible conclusion to come to with the DLC and it's really disheartening when people say it doesnt make sense and undeservingly dunk on it when this is some of the best and most complex lore FS has put out
@@xXTallertechXx People were tunnel-visioned into Godwyn being a figure Miquella also looked up to, which meant the Radahn reveal made no sense to some people.
I think one of the things that really rubs me the wrong way about JA is how so many times in his videos he softens his critique at the end by saying that the work of the game feels unfinished and if the devs just spent more time making it perfect then he and everyone would be happy. Meanwhile he has been stuck for literal years not releasing his Witcher 3 video which I believe he said was more or less done when the first video came out and he just seems endlessly hung up on it. Like how can you be actively experiencing the problem of just forcing everything to be "perfect" and not realize that this is a bad suggestion. I'm surprised his channel doesn't do month Star Citizen news round ups since they're the only devs that actually do things the way he thinks they should.
This is the most validating video I’ve ever seen
I see you, my dude. You're valid.
I'm saying 😅
I have never played a dark souls. I'm not part of the community. I don't even know who Joseph Anderson is. All that said, this video is the one that's motivated me to finally get into the series. Thanks dude.
Amazing. Love to hear it.
I think a lot of these creators have interpreted “critique” to mean “point out all the flaws in something and ignore the positives in the name of artistic improvement” and not “provide a thorough and comprehensive analysis of a piece of artwork for the benefit of the broader discussion of the piece”, and the implied exclusivity of “critique” helps them feel more comfortable in sticking to their guns and not taking any criticism themselves. I’ve felt put off by Joseph’s work for a while now and couldn’t put my finger on why, but I think the “my job is to provide criticism for creators and I’m doing them a favor” mindset is exactly the problem
Critique can mean anything you want it to mean. There is no codified set of laws which require a critique to take a balanced view of a game, or to also point out positives. As a player I want to know what someone's time is like with a game. That can start with objective things such as how good is the options menu, how usable is the UI, do you have a good system but yet are getting poor frame rate issues. Everything else about the game is subjective. Was it fun, was it easy, did you enjoy certain sections and so on. Hearing what you didn't like is more valuable to me as a player because i can determine whether your concerns are anything like the same as mine.
What I don't need is a puff piece extolling every last virtue of the game. We already have "game journalists" who do that. People like to hear nice things being said about the games they love, its the equivalent of someone being told they're pretty. There's nothing wrong with that, but you learn nothing by hearing that, except your opinion for liking a game is validated. However the negatives are far more valuable to you. Ultimately its up to the individual viewer to find a variety of views, you should never take a single critiquer's views as the gospel. You need time and experience with any given critiquer to know whether they run negative, positive or somewhat in the middle. As long as they are consistent and you know their biases then you can use them as a valuable resource. Critiquers who are not consistent are worthless.
@@Blackened30 It is very much widely accepted that 'critique' means a COMPREHENSIVE analysis of an artistic piece, philosophical theory, etc.
Even so, you yourself used a strawman argument here. The guy didn't say "I want puff pieces"; he said "a thorough and comprehensive analysis", which in no way implies hearing only the positives. Furthermore, "I want to know what someone's time is like with a game" and saying you want to hear predominantly the negatives can lead to antithetical results. It can result in a critique that convinces you the critic had a bad time, even if his opinion might be overwhelmingly positive. Few people are going to exclusively follow a critic to the point they get their 'language', style, and unspoken implications.
You use another strawman argument when talking about puff pieces and "the equivalent of being told you're pretty". To say (or imply, because you did) there's little to no nuance and a failure to evoke artistic understanding in talking about the positives is blatantly false, not to mention... IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE! If it was that easy to make something good, and thus to analyze why that thing is good and how it manged to invoke strong positive feelings, everybody would be doing it. This especially applies to something as complex and with as many components as video games. The same work of art not only can but WILL be adored by different people for different reasons; hell, that applies to individual bits within that work. There's plenty of nuance and exploration in understanding why something succeeded for the critic and reasons to express that appreciation in the hopes of expanding on the discussion around that something. Besides, the validation point you mentioned can absolutely apply to the negative-focused critiques.
I'm not saying talking about the positives is inherently better, because it isn't. But that applies the other way around as well. I hate this myth of 'all positive critiques are the same, all negative critiques are negative in their own way'. Furthermore, you won't find most critics of any artistic medium try to offer suggestions to the artist, nor be expressly negative for a work they predominantly enjoyed, for the simple reason that they understand what their job is. Even if it isn't codified (a statement with very questionable validity), there is in fact a strong understanding of the role of the critic within art.
@@Marco1995Mega My view is that game critique is different than any other form of artistic critique because there are so many variables involved. What does a comprehensive analysis of a game mean? Do you need to complete it? Do you need to complete it on every difficulty, as well as new game plus modes, find all the secrets and kill every optional boss? Do you need to do every last thing possible? Very few games critics who cover a wide variety of games have time to do that, let alone come back to it 6 months later after several patches have dropped. The single game or single genre critic or the ones who release a large video every 6 months can do that. The retrospective game critic looking at a 5 year old game that's "finished" might do that. An art or book critic has a much easier job since any single piece they analyze will never change over time. The term "game critic" can cover anything from someone who's played a few hours and is now giving you their opinion on that time to the 6 hour in depth analysis. One of those is of more worth to me before I buy a game, and one is of more worth to me after I do. Where the line stops between a review and critique is blurry.
Critics are rarely that positive about games because its not their job to be, in the same way that movie critics can spend 20 minutes bringing up all the faults and missed opportunities and in the end say they enjoyed their time with it. The idea of being critical is to find fault, all of them, even in the most wonderful of games. I don't take it to mean that the critic didn't enjoy their time unless they specifically state that. For me its them saying here is what I feel is wrong, see if it matters to you. I find that extremely valuable, especially from a valuation perspective of whether something is worth my time and money. A retrospective critic working to understand the actual value of a project is an entirely different animal, with an entirely different frame of reference where they may go more into the positives and negatives and dive deeply into all facets of a game. These are the ones who are more likely to talk about the game as art, instead of the functional nuts and bolts that make a game worth playing. Critics making suggestions to game developers isn't something that bothers me, everyone has an opinion on what makes for a better game, and everyone is free to share that.
To touch on positive critiques for a moment, I appreciate it when a critic tells me they enjoyed their time with a game and why they did. I appreciate when they tell me yes these are the faults, but that didn't stop me from loving the overall. When I say I learn from the negatives, I mean the other 2 hours they just spent tearing apart the mechanics are more informative to me. There's also nothing wrong with someone writing what amounts to a love letter to their favorite games with only minor criticism or none at all. You can argue about whether that constitutes a critique or not, but I don't find those to be learning pieces. They feel good to watch, and that's all. True puff pieces come from professional games journalists primarily for reasons that I find disingenuous much of the time.
@@Blackened30 A lot of what you said is based on what I think are false or flawed premises, the primary being that there isn't a very recognizable, identifiable differentiation between review and critique. There very much is. The point of a review is endorsement for a product or the lack of it; it serves an economical purpose. A critique is comprehensive analysis of an artistic piece (and other things) achieved through critical thought and an informed perspective. Joe himself has echoed that same idea, and stated that his critiques are intended for those who have already experienced the games, not as a review for those going in blind.
Yes, I'd argue it borders on inarguable that in a critique, the critic at least completed a regular run of the game, and not necessarily NG+ or all the difficulties. I agree that with games, 'comprehensive' can be a bit hard to define in SOME cases, but let's not stretch that to the point of meaninglessness. Furthermore, you're confusing why critics are called critics. It's not because 'being critical' means showcasing the unfavorable elements, but because they're trying to build appreciation for a piece through critical thought and analysis. Yes, that also means pointing out what they see as shortcomings, but I've still rarely, if ever, heard a movie or music critic be almost exclusively negative in their reviews of works they've mostly enjoyed.
Another premise I think is flawed is the idea that more positive critiques have no educational value. Again, the main point of artistic critique is to invoke artistic appreciation, whether that ends up being positive, negative or a mix of both. Expounding on the positives absolutely can offer deep insight into how one achieves such great accomplishments, and indirectly, where further improvement could be implemented to achieve even greater heights.
Furthermore, finding shortcomings in mechanics, the "functional nuts and bolts" as you said, will not provide an objectively more valuable evaluation because it is NOT objective. Unless we're strictly talking about the driest of facts like bugs and frame data, the ultimate evaluation will still be subjective, because a game critic observes those objective elements - of how the game's mechanics fundamentally work - and finds subjective meaning in the whole. Two action game critics could make vastly different evaluations on the same action game, like many did with Sekiro for example. A critic making negative evaluations on that front is thus no more or less inherently educational or significant than the critic making positive ones. In part, because there is another false premise here, which is that positive evaluations do not go just as in-depth into the nitty-gritty as the negative ones.
Finally, negative critiques have absolutely been rightfully accused of being disingenuous, farming engagement, and acting on bad faith. I've seen my fair share. Hell, professional games journalists do such things all the time, too. Not to mention using game journalists to comparatively devalue positive critiques makes little sense in the context of the wider internet and business of critical evaluation. They're monetarily incentivized to be more positive then they ought to for those future review codes, like you implied. However, in the world of freelance critics and UA-cam, where negativity and rants are proven stronger tools to accrue audience engagement, it would make more sense that negative evaluations have a higher chance of being disingenuous, with the opposite being true for more positive ones.
@@Marco1995Mega A review can certainly be endorsement or lack of endorsement for a product, but it doesn't need to be. A review for me is a simplistic view of a game that can be gleaned in a quick video or small article. It exists to give an explanation and possibly a viewpoint of a game that's bite sized. It can end with a meaningless score out of 10 or with an endorsement or lack thereof, but it doesn't have to. It could simply end with someone saying they enjoyed the game, which you could take as endorsement if you're so inclined. The only mandatory requirement of a review is that the person reviewing finished the game. Not 100% completion of all optional content, but you do need to know what you're talking about to evaluate a whole game. People tend to get angry when a reviewer admits they didn't play the whole game. You could refer to a review as a quick and dirty critique, because judgement of the various games systems as well as the story and how well it all worked together as a whole is implied.
Between the review and the 6 hour no-holds-barred entirely comprehensive critique of a game sits a wealth of analysis videos. UA-cam has made it possible for people to really get down in the weeds if they wish. A creator could make a 2 hour video containing commentary on only the first 15 minutes of a game. They could talk extensively about the first encounters, the layout and graphical style, the effectiveness of the opening cinematic and a whole host of other analysis, comparisons and overview of how well it all worked for them. I would label this a critique of that section of a game. Its absolutely comprehensive in its subject matter, albeit with a narrow focus on a sub-section of the game. This is where I mean the definition of critique in the gaming sphere is not defined, and I think still evolving. This is subjective, so if your opinion is a critique has a narrower definition then fair enough.
You are right to say that mechanical analysis doesn't provide more objective evaluation, which was not a point I intended to make. There are very few, if any objective evaluations within any video game critique that can be made. There is a subset of the viewing audience who scream about such things, but I think it always has to be understood that what you're watching is someone's opinion on something that's already as subjective as a video game is in the first place. Of course mechanics such as how fast a move can be used or how smooth movement feels is going to vary between people, which is why getting a variety of viewpoints on a game is critical.
My own view is I find more value in the negative opinion of a given system or element of a game because people do expand on it more. They feel the need to defend that viewpoint, so tend to wax much longer on those points. For me the more information you give me about how you feel about a certain element the more I learn and understand about your view of things. I love mechanics, its something I've always enjoyed since the earliest days of my tabletop gaming days. I care very much about how and why something works for a given individual. If some element of a game isn't brought up in a given video then I assume its something that is liked, or isn't notable to that creator. Its also much more obvious to me why something is liked then why its disliked, and that's why I want to hear a 20 minute derailment of someone's main point as they go into exactly what it was that didn't work for them. Its probably just me and who I am, and if others find the positives as interesting then fair enough. For me, I simply learn more from what is disliked. So its not going to bother me if someone spends three hours shredding a game I love, because I already know why it works for me. I want to know why it didn't work for you. For me the mechanics are in many ways the core of any game, so its vitally important. Games as art and whether all games are art or not is a whole other subject, though I think games are more than art and it can be limiting to think of them in only one way.
As to accusations of creators being disingenuous, every creator at one time or another faces accusations. I imagine every video has its detractors. I don't have an opinion on that. I don't have the ability to see into anyone's mind and determine their intent. I'm generally fine with taking a creator's opinions stated as their true opinion because it frankly causes no harm to believe so. If they state they're playing Devil's Advocate or very obviously saying something provocative because they know it will get a rise, again that doesn't bother me. Trying to get a rise out of your audience to create engagement is as old as humanity I imagine. Professional game outlets and their stock of rostered staff I tend to view differently.
I think what most people need to realise is that critics, alongside their criticisms aren't immune to being criticised and that they aren't immune to being wrong at times. Many often just goes with the loudest opinion too and that for some reason just instantly kills their ability to think critically
This video feels like something we really needed without knowing it. Fantastic analysis!
"You can use a Rune Arc to give even greater benefits to your equipped Great Runes." - implies that there is a benefit to equipping Great Runes, before using a Rune Arc.. and that using a Rune Arc makes that benefit even greater.
I'm genuinely trying to interpret that in another way, but I can't. Remember, some people haven't played Dark Souls. If you didn't already know that's how Great Runes worked, would you really interpret the description any differently?
The argument isn't whether I interpret it differently or even if it is reasonable to assume it could be read in a different way. It is not objective if it isn't a fact.
You can say that the text is really confusing. You can't say that the feature is objectively bugged. Two very different criticisms.
@@GredGlintstone My man, theres alot of hills to die on, Fromsofts conveyance of their item effects and mechanical information is not one of them, Even Miyazaki has said there is room for improvement on their end.
I agree that this is indeed a misleading tooltip - especially if one has not played any souls game - and this fooled me as well. However from context the natural conclusion to me is that this is not a bug, but more likely either a mistranslation or a leftover from previous designs due to a mistake.
I think this is also overall a small issue, and that getting super-mad about it like in the original video is an overreaction, bordering into the "literally unplayable" meme territory.
@@sasaki999pro I don't think he's dying on that hill though?
I just read your thread here. You agree with one another. You both agree that poor conveyance/confusing tooltip is the problem.
I agree with that too btw. I thought for a fair bit of time that equipping the rune had a base effect.
@@albertoorsomariaiorio2823 within context the mechanic of rune arcs is trash if it is indeed supposed to work like that. Time to die in this game is simply too fast for rune arcs to work
I think the point behind the "get good" discussion is that its the blanket, mindless response, not peoples real opinion. Theres no reason behind them saying it, so it adds nothing to the discourse.
And, I feel skill issue could still be seen as an insult?
It literally means 'you are a poor skilled player'.
I can 100% understand why people would feel insulted if the only response to them being frustrated with a mechanic was 'you suck'.
It's the perfect way of dismissing people giving bad faith arguments with no real desire to learn or discuss.
@@evilfungasIt's unfortunate, then, that it's almost never used in that context, and is instead used to discard valuable criticism because the recipient of the statement is "worse at video games" than the other person is.
These youtubers criticizing elden ring for reused assets but who's gonna criticize them for reusing the same "________ masterpiece" title.
Facts.
absolutely tired of that same "flawed masterpiece" title that atp i roll my eyes so far back in my head that i can see my own fucking brain
people are so afraid of liking something, or god forbid loving something, that it's become mind-numbingly infuriating to see
While I think that It may be less excesive and there are instances where It could be though better, I also considerate that the people complaining about reusing assets on an open world have a fundamental misunderstanding of how these games are actually developed.
On a Game as Big as Breath of The Wild, for instance, they had the Big Challenge to fill a map 5 times bigger than a linear Game, with a limited amount of budget and a limited amount of time.
Apart of the main story points, they had to fill an insanely Big world with worthy stuff.
And is there are upcomings and shortcomings over a Big open world to a short open world, same as It happens Within a metroidvania and a linear Game. And these are not flaws, just advantages or disanvatanges that someone could consider them weighty enough to make their veredict.
Elden Ring has by far the biggest roster of Boss fights of any Fromsoftware Game, having the amount of DS1 and DS3 Bosses combined. Bosses that actually have a lot of effort behind, hell, a lot of minibosses are as complex and Varied as DS1 lategame bosses or DS3 middle bosses.
I do not consider this a flaw, hell, I would say I consider this an archievement.
Meh, content creators are always going to piggyback off popular titles, before this it was hbomberguy's "Noun is Adjective (And Here's Why)", popular things get copied because they're popular and people will click on them anyway, no one values originality as much as they think they do imo
@@JoseViktor4099 exactly. I don’t get why people think asset reuse is only a negative thing. Take rgg (the yakuza studio) and their games. They’re able to be made quick (gaiden was made in 6 MONTHS and it’s a great game) without sacrificing quality because they reuse many assets when they can, even entire areas from previous games, to save on development costs and time.
finally. this video is perfect for someone like me. I hate the current state of negative game “critique” so much 😭😭 feeblekings videos on shadow of the erdtree specifically were very frustrating
So glad you dug it. Positivity doesn't have to be toxic. You can like things :)
I hate the fans of these critics even more, they’re the same but just more braindead and toxic
Why are you getting frustrated by someones negative opinion about a video game tho? Sounds childish.
@@HopefulNihilist You could say the exact thing about people who don't like glazing or toxic positivity.
@@GredGlintstone
What kinda logic even is that... lmao
Saying you don't think a game is as good as people say it is ≠ being frustrated about people liking said game.
Wish I had something less cliche to say than this video is a masterpiece - the level of research, organization, and commentary really motivates me
Thanks so much dude! Really appreciate the support.
After a third watch of this video I think it is worth mentioning that if we accept that video games are art, and we should, then we also must accept that this conversation between artist and player has been going on since Demon’s Souls.
When I finally got around to playing through Demon’s Souls in 2020 most of the game was a cakewalk. That’s because I entered the conversation with Bloodborne, played through all the other games available by 2020, and then played Demon’s Souls. Something that FromSoftware has done a fantastic job at though is pushing players to improve, to think outside the box, and to use different mechanics to overcome challenges. Bloodborne teaches players that they don’t need shields when they can dodge. You could play the previous games like this already but FromSoft at the time of Bloodborne really wanted to say to players “hey, don’t use shields. We think you’ll like it.” Similarly, Sekiro pushes on players that fights have a rhythm to them. If you tune yourself to these rhythms you can perform better in fights. Elden Ring shows players that they have multiple strategies when it comes to defeating enemies. You have consumables, throwables, magic, faith, you have weapon arts, you have different kinds of weapons. You can go back to Demon’s Souls and see that this has pretty well always been the case. The games have just added even more stuff as they have gone on.
The reason I bring this up is because if these critics like Joseph Anderson and Feeble King say that these are some of their favourite games, and I assume they have played all of them, then it becomes absurd to think that they have not also recognized this. The games are more challenging as they go on because FromSoft knows we can handle it. Not because they get some thrill from smashed controllers.
I also wonder how much of the criticism comes from them not enjoying their first playthrough, making a video in that headspace, and then not wanting to say they were wrong. I know if I made a review on Elden Ring after my first playthrough it would have a lot of negativity. I did not enjoy the game too much once I got to Mountaintop of the Giants. My friends and I complained a lot. I recognize now after thinking on the experience that the negativity was self-made. I didn’t change my strategies. I didn’t use the mechanics available to me. I kept thinking on the game and when I did return for a NG+ run I specced into Faith, got some Incantations, and by the time I fought Morgott again I was having much more fun. Instead of waiting for the limited punish windows to hit him with heavy attacks I was peppering him with fire as he moved around the arena. I was created new opportunities to break his posture. A few months ago I watched another response to Joseph’s original video and in it the creator mentioned that you can use throwables to interrupt Melania’s Waterfowl Dance. It felt like a bomb went off in my brain. I had no idea that you could do that. Now I am excited to eventually fight her again.
Wow thanks for coming back a third time. Really great that you're still getting something out of it.
It goes back to a broader point of “intended experience” in video games which makes these huge modern games quite difficult to gauge. There’s a lot of games in the past that i just approached with the “wrong” mindset and just couldn’t enjoy. Is my criticism of those playthroughs valid? Or was I just playing wrong.
In my playthrough of tears of the kingdom I started by spending 3 hours going out of bounds. Was I wrong in playing this way and feeling a certain way? It’s inherent to video game analysis compared to more passive media like movies and books. There there is a much clearer experience, compared to games where you can ruin your playthrough.
This video is wonderful and refreshing. Honestly a great pushback on some things that I've grown to hate these days in game discussion.
Best video i've seen about this topic. UA-cam has become a cesspool of anti-intellectual intellectuals.
Glad you dug, it dude.
"Pseudo-Intellectual"
And yes it IS an epidemic.
This is why I try to actually think about what someone is saying in reviews or critiques. Actively listening to get to a conclusion on their stance as apposed to just consuming the video and moving on. There have been moments where I’m like, “that’s a bad faith argument” or “that’s not even true” and actively question the persons words as to not take them at face value as true or as some arbiter of knowledge.
Big agreement with your artistic scenery point. I just can’t figure out why people play video games and instantly try to reduce the experience down to a number crunching game. It’s so bizarre to me…..why not just code or do arithmetic?
Please, UA-cam Algorithm. PLEASE be kind to this man. Thus, I offer this comment in aid of this great cause.
Thanks, dude!
Engaging to hyperboost
Hey it worked!!
I like the Elden ring better the Shadow the colossus, BUT, SotC has my FAVOURITE open World out of any game and it’s not even close.
SotC’s open world is probably the emptiest open world I’ve ever seen, and I love it.
I say this because I never hear anybody talk about the openness being a positive, the space in between. It’s good stuff.
I feel like ultimately none of this matters as the deeper issue is internet culture. People lose sight of middle ground, etiquette and even proper sentence structure. If ANYONE takes a UA-camr as the first and last word on ANY subject, they’re the one making the mistake. The culture of the age is rage and if you aren’t stirring it up or creating it, you are lost in anonymity. Become and introvert and your life will be improved, IN MY OPINION.
Seriously, thank you for this video. The amount of missinformation, hateplay, and condescension that has spread in the community is ridiculous; just like you said, these types of reactions by some members of the community wouldn't be acceptable in other communities or media.
Goes without saying that you can like something and still have issues with it, but apparently we are glazers for not validating other's frustrations and opinions.
12:10 ya joseph was melodramatic, but he was right about the description of Great Runes being factually incorrect. "even greater benefits" means there are benefits that will become EVEN GREATER, which is wrong since there are no benefits at all without using a Rune Arc, and "you CAN use a Rune Arc" implies it's optional, which is only true in the sense that any buff in a game is optional, you can play naked Lvl1 without weapons if you want, but it's not optional for activating your Great Rune's benefits. That's not some subjective interpretation, that's what those words mean. They should've written smt like "You must consume a Rune Arc to activate your equipped Great Rune's benefits. This effect will last until you die"
Exactly. The description states something that is OBJECTIVELY WRONG.
To be fair though, even in truth this argument feels nitpicky. Like ok, sure, its an issue with the game, but is it particularly harmful to the player's experience?
Most people, whether they assume the great rune has passive effects or not, will not notice a minor increase in their stats. If somebody is expecting some benefit from their great rune in the moment, then they are actively thinking about it. Perfect time to use a rune arc and reap those large buffs. A very minor stat increase will rarely matter in situations where it might.
Aside from any of this though, my biggest issue with this argument is that its disingenuous, and comes off as rather spiteful. The rune arc is very blatantly not "bugged." It works exactly as intended, as it was designed to function. Perhaps a passive buff was cut from an earlier version of the game, and they forgot to update the text. Perhaps it was a mistranslation. Perhaps it was a bad description from the start. Perhaps the person writing it misunderstood the feature.
There are any number of reasons the text could be wrong, but to not just assume, but _assert_ that it is due to a bug, a broken aspect of the game, a failure worthy of rage and ridicule,,,, is absurd!
This couldve just been a funny little thing. A quirk of the game that may or may not get fixed as Fromsoft works on larger issues. But no, he had to turn it into a culture war.
But this has been colored by my personal bias. At its most fundamental level, my argument remains: it is fucking _insane_ to assume that this is a bug and not a misprint. I imagine that JA _wants_ it to be a bug, because he _wants_ that passive buff.
You guys are such massive babies, oh no one thing from this japanese game was translated incorrectly and has no effect on the game itself and is blatantly obvious what its intended to mean to anyone who thinks about it for 3 seconds. Thanks for pointing it out and making such a big deal out of it though, it really illustrates the problem with joseph anderson critiques given that most of his criticisms boil down to minor grievances like his that he can exaggerate to look like major problems that is DESTROYING VIDEO GAMES
@@apuffin9545 ironically, youre the one making a big deal out of something here. Explaining the point of the remark that Joseph made, and that this video rebuked is a contribution to discussion - which is the point of all these videos.
Screeching about how everyone is a baby that's 'destroying video games' for having a discussion is a great example of exactly the issue Joe brings up with toxic fanbases.
If you dont want to engage in the discussion, then at the minimum please stop throwing a tantrum at it.
@@apuffin9545 chill bro, nobody's making a big deal out of it here. the text is simply incorrect, and no it's not obvious that it means smt else. The only one freaking out here is you (and joseph anderson)
Only gripe with the vid is the slight misrepresentation of Matthew's vid (lost art of demon Souls) but overall a much needed video. It's so, so hard to find good video game commentary and critique. Everyone is rage-baiting and throwing out fancy terms with zero grasp on what they mean.
You think so? I thought I argued that he makes a lot of good points. I only took issue with a couple of his blanket statements about a lack of innovation and why dodge hit is boring. I think his argument about strategising for fights is actually really strong. It's why I bring it up because people always use the vid as evidence that the souls series has gotten boring but that's not what Matthew is arguing. I actually really agree with Matthew in that video for the most part.
But really appreciate the nice words again. The fancy terms is a big one. I made sure to show my definitions. I was worried it would become more like a powerpoint presentation than a video essay but I felt like it was really important. I really don't like when people on youtube use fancy words but don't explain what they mean. It's really elitist imo.
@@GredGlintstone I was specifically thinking of the Micolash preference and "Bloodborne is more Demon Souls" part which wasn't what he said but you did end up clarifying later.
The clarity on terms is a breath of fresh air. Didn't feel like a PP presentation at all. Well done.
Ah, that's good. Glad I cleared it up. Would hate to think I misrepresented him
Cheers for that
Thank you for making this video. It is extremely frustrating to watch the discourse regarding FromSoft games gradually getting degraded by content creators who confuse criticism for critique. I love Matthew's videos, but specifically his commentaries on Demon's and Dark Souls, which I don't think were mentioned in this video. These commentaries elevate the viewer's understanding of their respective game's design, they're the antithesis of "video essays" that infect the discourse with bad faith arguments, incorrect information, or well-poisoning against anyone who would offer a counterargument. I appreciate that you acknowledged that Matthew only has three critiques in this style and that they're distinguished from their descendants by the context within which they were written (at least, Dark Souls II's and Bioshock Infinite's were), but I thought I'd still bring his commentaries as positive examples of criticism. After all, this is the same man who spent 6 months writing about Zachtronics games to no one in particular. Noah Caldwell-Gervais also deserves a mention for the quality of his critique.
[WALL OF AUTISM WARNING]
As it stands, video game "critique" now exists to either validate the viewer's own preconceptions about a given subject, not to elevate the viewer's understanding of the medium or the media being critiqued. Many people watch videos about Bethesda games because they want their disdain for Bethesda's stagnation and decline as a developer validated, because it's cathartic. Many people watch videos about FromSoft to have their own experience of playing through the game validated, because it's cathartic. Some people will even intentionally watch videos by content creators whose opinions they personally disagree with for this catharsis. Any opinion that differs from my own or offers a different perspective that I didn't previously consider is a threat, rather than an opportunity. Critique has become about seeking out the critical echo chamber that accommodates your thoughts and feelings, rather than having them be challenged by different perspectives.
Worse, the majority of criticism is of a low quality. A lot of what critics like Anderson argue evinces a lack of understanding about game design, rather than giving their opinions and perspectives credibility. Whenever I see that the majority of footage in an Elden Ring video is of dual colossal / colossal greatsword jumping attacks, it instantly discredits the author; not because this is an inherently "low skill" way of playing Elden Ring, but because it is a "low engagement" way of playing. Elden Ring's combat, much like Monster Hunter, is designed around the simple principle of momentum. And like Monster Hunter, the factors influencing the momentum of the fight are deliberately obscured from the player for the reason you stated at 1:31:04. Elden Ring hides the enemy's stance bar and status effect bars (status being the momentum equivalent for weapons with low stance damage). Monster Hunter hides the monster's part break, stun, status, and stagger thresholds. This is the secret sauce of these games' combat mechanics, and anyone who begs for a stance bar to be visible above every enemy fundamentally does not understand Elden Ring. Dual colossal jumping attacks is low engagement because it is the path of least resistance to exploiting this principle of momentum. It is the most efficient way to exploit it in most fights, and allows you to brute force fights without learning either the fight itself or other, equally important principles. (Blood-infused antspur rapier fingerprint stone shield shieldpoking is the path of no resistance, because it completely circumvents combat mechanics.) When I see dual colossal jump attack spam and only dual colossal jump attack spam, what I see is someone who sees the game as an inconvenience, not an opportunity to play.
Similarly, some critics seem to willfully misunderstand the purpose of "useless" items in SotE - both in the world and dropped by enemies. Rather than elevating our understanding of the game's design by explaining that these items were probably placed by the developer to encourage players to actually experiment with the new weapons and spirit ashes in the DLC without having to rely on the base game and disrupt their DLC playthrough, they view them as a personal affront against their own steady stream of dopamine; an interruption, an inconvenience, rather than the convenience that they are designed to be. And then there's the dreaded "useless for my build" criticism.
I want to stress that there's nothing wrong with either of these examples... until you start having a very vocal opinion about game design in front of an audience of hundreds of thousands of viewers. In both of these above examples, there's a common thread of
>If it isn't designed for me, it's bad
>and because it's bad, I'm not interested in understanding it
The lack of a visible stance bar is bad because it doesn't accommodate my preconceptions about what the game should be. Rather than feeling the flood of relief when that Hail Mary charged R2 delivers me from death, I think it would be better if the game make itself more predictable so that the challenge can be predictably overcome. (Even though stance breaks are easily achieved through intuition, because Elden Ring's stance break system is universal unlike its antecedents - with the exception of Sekiro, which is explicitly designed around stance breaks to the exclusion of other mechanics.) Because the challenge is not perfectly predictable, there is risk and I can't overcome it with perfect consistency. My dopamine stream is disrupted and I feel discomfort. Rather than delving into this dungeon, not knowing whether what may or may not be in it might be "useless for my build", I think that it would be better if the game provided me, the player, with more agency over what I do and don't receive; perhaps some sort of universal reward which could be exchanged for items or even stat points that I do want, ensuring that I am always progressing my build even if the Raya Lucaria Crystal Cave contained crystal sorceries instead of a big FUCKING sword (which I wouldn't use because it's useless for my build). My dopamine stream is disrupted and I feel discomfort.
I have to experience trial and error. I have to be challenged and overcome that challenge. I have to learn. I have to play the video game. And for whatever reason, this is the most consistent criticism I see of Elden Ring and FromSoft games now: people hate the core principle of being challenged and overcoming that challenge which has guided the series since Demon's Souls. People are actively hostile to the design of these games that they profess as their "favorites" and seek out the path of least resistance, all the while spreading misinformation and bad faith arguments about them - or, worse, putting forth amateur game dev. suggestions that would only make FromSoft more like other video games that people disdain. Video game "critique" isn't critique. It's barely even criticism. It's a blog about the author's own personal experience, at its worst lacking either curiosity or critical insight.
I am extremely thankful that FromSoft, for all their flaws as a developer, are evidently unconcerned with fans' feedback and have guiding principles that have allowed them to make good games for as long as they have. I think that we are witnessing not the decline of FromSoft's design philosophy, but its incompatibility with increasing mainstream success. The beauty of Demon's Souls was that it forced the player to adapt within a rigidly structured experience that still rewarded thinking outside of the box; from examples as simple as picking up the Crescent Falchion in 4-1, to planning and executing complex paths through the game to create nonstandard builds, which was also rewarded in Dark Souls. The concept of players being unified by a common experience works within the framework of Demon's Souls because players will very likely have a common experience. The issue is that the spectrum of experience in Elden Ring is far too wide to produce substantive discourse. FromSoft games have always relied on a nonstandard method of modulating difficulty - or rather, letting the player modulate difficulty - but the unprecedented freedom that Elden Ring offers the player stretches this method to its limit. It is extremely difficult to reconcile the experience of someone who played through the game at level 300 with a fully-upgraded Mimic Tear and a bleed build (again, nothing wrong with this), and someone who played through it two-handing a quality Claymore infused with Stamp (Sweep). Worse, It's impossible if neither party wants to concede that spirit ashes decease the game's difficulty, or that playing it like you would Dark Souls in 2011 increases it.
Rather than living in a weird dystopia where everyone is forced to provide footage of themselves playing the game before their opinion is considered, I'd like to see critics helping to bridge this experiential gap with critical insight, because I think that's what is needed to make discussing FromSoft games possible again. I love these games, but the truth is that while I once sought out discussion about Demon's Souls, Dark Souls, Bloodborne, and Elden Ring, I no longer want to discuss them at all.
Thank you for taking the time to write this. I can tell you’re very passionate and I can empathize with your feeling of being a little over discussing these games.
It’s become pretty rough online lately. Don’t feel you need to justify your experience to anyone. Enjoy it on your terms.
I just gotta through this out there... The fromsoft fan base is not the most toxic worst fan base. It's the competitive pokemon fan base. As a man that has had an unhealthy obsession with both franchises I can say hands down that the competitive pokemon fanbase is the worst.
I can only imagine. As an outsider most Pokémon look like they're bunz.
@@Glitchedsoulsborne how bad are we talking? I've never been in Pokemon that deep.
Though as a former RuneScape player, I'd wager their fanbase is so much worse than the Souls community, given there are people who would commit literal crimes if you so much as slight particular people.
Not to mention ddosing, and doxxing. Soulsbros will, at worst, call you names or slurs. It does not compare at all.
@@user-pn4px5lr8w I didn't realize runescape community is like that either wow. Ya the worst the souls community does is say git gud and throw a dung pie at you haha.
From someone who once played League and Overwatch..... Souls is fine...
@@Glitchedsoulsborne ya it's absolutely rotten. It's partly why I've distanced myself from the game, though mostly the gameplay stopped appealing to me.
In Matthew's dark souls 2 review, after he says that miyazaki claimed difficulty was never the point he says that the point is to pull the player into the world and deliver climatic moments. When i searched for interviews where miyazaki expressed his opinion on difficulty i found this quote, "When I’m playing these games, I think, This is the way I’d want to die - in a way that is amusing or interesting, or that creates a story I can share." This sounds quite similar to what Matthew was saying about climatic moments. In another interview he said "I feel like our approach to these games, not just Elden Ring, is to design them to encourage the player to overcome adversity. We don’t try to force difficulty or make things hard for the sake of it. We want players to use their cunning, study the game, memorize what’s happening, and learn from their mistakes." In this quote he directly says that the games aren't difficult for the sake of being difficult which is a statement i think could be reasonably summarized as "difficulty isn't the point." Matthew's paraphrasing of the ideas miyazaki has expressed into "difficulty was never the point" has been misattributed as being a direct quote from miyazaki so many times not because it is an outright lie that people have heard and falsely believed, but because it is a short and simple distillation of one of the principles behind the souls series.
here are the two articles i quoted
80.lv/articles/dark-souls-creator-explained-why-fromsoftware-games-are-so-difficult/
www.pcgamer.com/elden-ring-director-miyazaki-says-he-doesnt-want-new-players-to-stress-about-difficulty/
@@dedstring ^ Already seeing people go to Matthew's video complaining about him "making up quotes", likely only seeing as much of his video as is shown in this one.
Not wanting thier games to be difficult for the sake of it isn't the same as difficulty not being the point, it is like Miyazaki said numerous times about given a fair consistent challenge that the player can learn and adapt with, it doesn't mean the games aren't hard or that their difficulty isn't a big appeal/part of the experience
"Not difficult for the sake of being difficult" is not the same as saying "difficulty was never the point". It's just saying there's a purpose for the difficulty, which is giving the players a sense of accomplishment. Even so, you're ignoring ALL the other times Miyazaki said that difficulty WAS the point, that the difficulty is one of the main, INTENDED appeals of his games.
He's only saying that there is a purpose for the difficulty, he didn't say difficulty wasn't the point. He still said Miyazaki said that the difficulty wasn't the point "over & over again" (which is another lie), which isn't true, Matthew should've said HIS OWN interpretation of Miyazaki's thoughts on difficulty by starting with "My own interpretations...", it's really that simple, but not as if he is reading his words verbatim, if we collected most of Miyazaki's interviews around every game release, you'd find that Miyazaki hasn't directly said anything close to what Matthew understood from him, actually it's on the opposite, he advocates for higher & higher difficulties, there are many other interviews that would support Gred's point, in an interview with EDGE Magazine in 2011 around Dark Souls 1, Miyazaki said "I have no intention to make the game easier. In fact, I want it to be more difficult. The way I put it to my team is that we are trying to make the most difficult game that is possible to make, which at the same time can be conquered by those who persevere. It has to be firm, but fair."
Now you can interpret this how you want, because if you applied that same quote above to DS2's difficulty, it would fit it perfectly, if I were to counterargue Matthew in the defense of DS2, I'd always bring up this interview, always, and I have the direct quote right there, which would cement my point much stronger than Matthew's. It's why I would side with Gred more than Matthew. Also if you listened to Gred carefully, Gred was calling this BS because most people would bring up those words from Matthew's video as if it's from Miyazaki in order to try & criticize & berate Elden Ring's difficulty, which is a very difficult game, but is absolutely fair, so Elden Ring's difficulty would easily slide within Miyazaki's 2011 EDGE interview, so when we face much more difficult games than DS1/2/3/BB, like Sekiro & Elden Ring, we shouldn't even begin to bring up this fake quote from Miyazaki which Matthew created out of thin air, it created a false narrative, it caused a lot of people being misinformed.
SILENCE! HE IS SPEAKING THE LANGUAGE OF THE GODS
Game reviewers who use “____ is a broken masterpiece” made me stop watching those videos. It’s so easy to make and so dumb.
This goes for critiques of shows as well. Long ass videos to just blow out their own ass. It’s simply not proper criticism, and it’s rampant.
Thank you for targeting them
On this topic, at least in regards to video games more so than other pieces of media, the game in question is usually one that’s widely considered mediocre or just plain bad, I also noticed this trend around 2 years ago when a bunch of different channels started making videos about how Kane & Lynch 2 was actually great and that it was a “misunderstood masterpiece”
While I can appreciate the games aesthetic, to make an hour long video essay that suggests an edgy 2010 cover shooter is trying to convey anything thought provoking about violence in media is kind of absurd, as you’d expect the videos of this kind had very little to say, stretched out and explained at a slow, meandering pace, the critic would rarely, if ever, talk about the intention of the developers and what their vision was for the project
absolutely brilliant video. i hope this starts a new trend in "critique" thats more nuanced and informed, with points that is actually backed up by facts and logic and research.
I pray to Surrogate-All-Father Miyazaki every day that this video receives far more attention than it has because i genuinely think seeing it would benefit a lot of people greatly. Forgive my toxic positivity but I don't think I've ever seen a more detailed, well edited, well thought out and thoroughly entertaining video. Sitting through 2 hours of someone talking about video games has never felt so fulfilling, and i sincerely hope you never quit making content and hope you enjoyed making it as much as i enjoyed watching it. Praise the sun!
May our trials be filled with error and our open world empty of reward
Sees 'Feeble' rocking Radahn armor and Guts Greatsword, "Oh, okay."
He's just cosplaying Kevin, L2den Lord
Radahn Armour really is the DS3 Fallen Knight armour isn't it. You can assume pretty safely that anyone you see wearing it is... not very good
@@OverFjell Hell nah, Fallen Knight is cool as hell.
@@OverFjellthe type of player to get meme parried 4 times in a row and mash out of parry stun again
@@dragonwings206 the type of player you roll catch twice in a row so they roll a third time and you catch them again
Dear god, thank you for making this video. I always had similar opinions toward this kind of content for years and it's so refreshing to see so many people agreeing. Not that I need a random youtuber on the internet or his viewers to validate my feelings, but when no one talks about it for years, it can make people feel crazy and alone sometimes. '^^
Again, thank you.
18:45 YES THANK YOU! Games and the communities surrounding them has become ridden with content brain. "Where's my reward? What's the use of this? Why is there no loot? Why is there bad loot?". What happened with games are art? If you watch a Wim Wenders film, or read a book by Salinger, sometimes a scene will exist just for it to exist. Maybe it will grab you, maybe it will make different people feel different things. Either way it will do something to you, because you're experiencing the art work.
This is what I felt with a lot of the "lackluster" ares of SotE. Finger ruins is awe inspiring and otherwordly. I haven't seen anything like it in Elden Ring or any other Soulsborne game for that matter. The abyssal woods are extremely atmospheric. Them locking torrent and making this place so big really makes you feel like a lost tiny soul. Maybe the replayability isn't top tier, but I just dont care man. I'm here to play the game and enjoy it for the piece of art that it is. I don't care about content and loot, just give me an experience I won't forget. If I want to replay it - great! If not, i'm fine. 40 bucks for an amazing first time playthrough is totally worth it in my book.
Plenty of areas in the original game were awe inspiring and filled with things to do. Finger Ruins are not awe inspiring and they take up roughly 10% of the dlc map. Cope all you want, OBJECTIVELY, they're a waste on a monumental scale. & don't comment back saying, but the metyr fight!!!!
Once again, plenty of areas were in the lands between are awe inspiring with THINGS TO DO.
The lake of rot isn't 10% of the whole map that i paid 100$ for in total. See the difference? The OBJECTIVE difference?
@@skepsisrollins1711 Haha did you watch the video until the end? It's kinda fun that you're harping on about objectivity when the whole point of the video is how interpreting art and objectivity is just not a thing.
I'm happy the finger ruins are huge with nothing to do. I didn't know that my first time through, yet I felt awe and terror and mystery when I traversed through it. Having covered it all, the fact that there wasn't anything there just made it feel even more mysterious. That's how I felt. I can't tell you how you felt, but what I was trying to say with my post was that maybe, sometimes, we could loosen up the feeling of I-payed-for-this-now-give-me-constant-content-with-clear-cut-meaning, and just let things be weird and unclear for the sake of being weird and unclear.
Critics are way too lost in the sauce of how games are made and how they're "supposed" to be made for the player. Aren't games a player driven experience? Aren't the most memorable moments in old games the times we break them?
@@lukebytes5366 yes, yes they are. RPGs specially double down on letting the player drive the story. It's really telling how bad JA and others are critiquing when they miss the fundamental point of what an RPG even is, while trying to pretend they know what they're talking about.
yall I think we found a hidden gem of a channel. This content is well beyond under 500 subs
Thanks for checking it out! I'm brand new to the youtube thing. The responses I've been getting have been so encouraging.
@@GredGlintstone For how much work this must've taken I'm glad its done so ewll. Keep up the great work, I'll be looking out for more of your videos
No no, I think you mean you found a hidden Glintstone of a channel. =V
@@FaeTheMf It's been a busy few weeks for sure. All while working full-time and studying too zzzzz
@@GredGlintstonehonestly I would never have known you were newer to UA-cam just based on this video. Incredibly well presented and you’re a great orator as well. Does your professional life/job include some crossover skills that help with UA-cam? I just ask because you come across as pretty experienced in this stuff!
Mohg at RL1+0 is SO MUCH FUN, I was thrilled seeing your section on him. He's one of the walls in RL1 runs that I think everyone should try, it gets you thinking so laterally and down to the finest detail to figure out how you can beat him, and as you get better and better, it just becomes this beat down on him in phase 1 where you feel absolutely invincible until he knocks you back down in phase two. It's so good, he has so many punish windows during his combos, you can positionally dodge a lot of his stuff to get free attacks in, and the whole thing is just SO GOOD
@anonisnoone6125 The blood fire is definitely a pain, but you get to a point of being able to tell "will I carian retaliate this in time or do I need to switch into full dodge and spacing mode once the fire is on the ground."
Incredibly frustrating getting to that point, but it feels like you're slowing down time and fighting like Neo when it clicks, which has this weird sense of soaring that other bosses don't have.
But yeah, I was losing my mind at points. Had to rewatch SaintRiot doing Mohg at RL40 to remember just to roll forward most of the time in phase 2.
Can confirm. It's great.
Would love to do a +0 run one day.
Thank you for mentioning the "only reward is a cookbook" BS. I was in complete awe as I ventured closer toward St. Trina. Finding Miquella's message near her made me cry. Seeing her, hearing her soundtrack, and her dialogue made me speechless. To me, the main rewards within the DLC are about the story. Meeting St. Trina, finding Marika's homeland, learning about the jar people and their genocide... these creators can't claim to be dependable sources of critique/information for a game series when they can't even appreciate the point and artistry of it.
You make a good point, especially when talking about St. Trina and the Finger ruins. It seems to me that most reviews say they want to treat games as the art they are, but then refuse to accept beauty, awe, and emotion as intrinsic rewards because they're not stat upgrades. This is an issue that seems to be ESPECIALLY prevalent when it comes to communities around ARPGs that selectively apply standards to games with no real basis. If you, like me, grew up in the heyday of JRPGs, you know how beautiful, exciting moments like cutscenes are their own reward. Hell it used to be a joke in the Final Fantasy community that you played the game to watch the anime minisodes inbetween. But now I have a feeling we've lost that. It's no longer enough to have a vista, or a fun fight, or a little puzzle. "Oh, a korok seed? That's useless!", "What do I need a Smithing Stone [2] for? My weapon's +10" the game used to be its own reward. Now if your awesome optional bossfight with a beautifully designed creature doesn't give you a Hyper Godkiller Mobius ∞ Ultra it's worthles.
You seem to miss the point of games being INTERACTIVE art and that the base game already did all that perfectly fine, it may have a good vista maybe a beautiful expression of the artist but it's still supposed to be a game. If you want to observe beautiful views they're other medias for that.
The underground city is a beautiful, straight up gorgeous place especially that 1st visit with the slow elevator but even after you have really good things to do down there, new enemies, bosses, materials etc.
If The finger ruins were supposed to be simple vistas there would be no need to duplicate them or have them be as big as they are.
This isn't even a FR or st. Trina problem either. The whole dlc has these good looking areas that are just that with some repeat bosses and cooking recipes.
The same happens with the rewards, if you want to act like vista 1st and game later type of scenery, ok, but at least give me something worth my time on the "game later" side and not some material that i can buy from the 2nd area of the game.
Feels like people like you are extremely lenient with elden ring when it comes to everything, if Ubisoft dropped an area like the crimson/cerulean fields, finger ruins, the way to st. Trina, the forest etc. with nothing to do in it you would call it for what it is: filling or an unnecessary adjective to a sentence.
Fromsoft apparently garnered a community where they can do no wrong and every sloppy material added to their game is either "misunderstood" or met with "get gud". A hive mind of elitists keen to the 1700s bourgeoisie
What does this analogy even refer to @@SiiimpX
I agree with this a lot but I don't think they do a good job providing you with emotion for overcoming many challenges in elden ring. I think the game could use with more narrative or npcs that you care about and have your actions see more effect than just getting a site of grace to remember your kill. If killing melania reduced the scarlet rot in Caelid then I would have much less negativity for that fight because the difficulty would be justified in the effect it would have on the world. I also think they missed out on a lot of opportunistic to characterize bosses more like I think having margit randomly appear was very cool and having that be a reccuring thing throughout the game would build him up more as a main antagonist making the fight with him when he is morgott a lot more impactful. I do not like the idea that everything needs a gameplay reward but having things like this and more npc interractions would make the lack of reward for some challenges a non issue
never has a video matched my emotion so well around a topic. Sometimes the hypocrisy in these criticisms genuinely gets to me, I often have to remind myself that these people have these beliefs for a reason, despite how antithetical it might be to their actual message/taste. I'm glad you took a structured, yet fervent approach, know that this video speaks to the opinions of many, including myself.
I only wish it got more traction, ah well. I can't wait to see another video like this made 10 years down the line calling out Jefferson Angleman for his new video made on the newest Fromsoft game and how it fails to capture the perfection of Elden Ring.
Edit: You don't have to read this bit I just had to add a quick note because I wrote this about an 1:30:00 into the video but that final bit in "Why don't you want games to be good" and the complete deconstruction of Feeble in the final chapter is really amazing. I totally get you when you say it breaks your heart seeing some of the things these people say and believe, and even worse **get other people to believe.** I've been in the debate around Elden Ring and its game design for awhile, much like you its my favorite game, through all the discussion I've had or seen others make I don't think I've seen a better put together video that directly addresses the issue so well while also managing to be engaging and entertaining. You also amended some of the things you got wrong in the video which shows you're willing to go further than many of these "critics." Seriously well done.
38:06 Hot Take: I actually love how unbalanced these games can be sometimes. I like the idea that I can go into a situation too early and be at a huge disadvantage but if i decide to be stubborn and win regardless, my reward is to be extremely overpowered for a bit.
balance is often times antithetical to fun - fromsoft knew this much even decades before demons souls.
Holy shit, you put into words what i was feeling while watching the Joseph Anderson Video. This is why we need critics
This should get a million views
Your lips to Miyazaki’s ears.
Agreed Hollow
hot
I hope so, it is sorely needed in this disfigured community that heeds to misinformation.
of which only 10% would understand or care what was said
Oh hey, a video about Souls game criticism that isn't bad. Wish these were more common. Still to this day I still wonder what Joseph is on about when he talks about boss designs in his DS3 and ER videos. They make me question if he learns the bosses at all.
I think he'd just really like it to take less time. It's an issue of patience.
Bosses are harder to learn and harder to defeat though. It's an acceptable criticism. But it's still the same core gameplay loop it's always been.
@@GredGlintstoneThat is what his argument comes down to, yeah. I do find it funny he still harps about waterfowl when you can skip it mostly with a single freeze pot
@@jedyzichterman358 You can fully avoid it by sprinting away the moment she starts it, then jump while sprinting when the 1st flurry starts, then roll the 2nd flurry, its timing is tight but it is doable, and lastly the 3rd flurry can be avoided simply by walking under her or rolling it if you're afraid a bit. It really is that simple IDK why he's making such a big fuss about it.
@@HeyTarnished That's under a light equip load though right?
@@jedyzichterman358 It also works with med-rolls too but it's harder to do though. If you're too afraid of risking it, just add a talisman that gives you additional roll s or via using the enhanced rolls tear for the Wondrous Flask.
I've not trusted Joseph Anderson's opinion ever since his Outer Wilds playthrough
I know not everyone will "get" it but man
The message was right there in his face and he just ignored it and then was disappointed by the game's ending
I'm about 23 minutes in, but I wanted to say thank you for teaching me the difference between "criticism" and "critique" because I've never known the distinction! I always thought they were the same!
18:19 It is a really beautiful but tragic character design. She was basically torn out of Miquella and thrown into a pit of death and her sleep was warped into a kind of poison.