Frame Trap - Episode 32 "Summer Games"

Hi Oscar, To me, the problem with your argument is that you're ignoring two very key points: 1. They're all completely different games. Uncharted is a third person shooter, TLOU is a survival horror game, Horizon is an open world action RPG, God of War is clearly still a character action game based on the gameplay we've seen, Detroit is an adventure game and Days Gone is an open world survival horror game. The only one I could maybe agree sounds derivative is Days Gone (derivative of Horizon btw, not TLOU, which always seemed like a very one dimensional comparison) but based on the two playthroughs of the same section we saw at E3, even that appears to differentiate itself with the numerous systems going on in the background that let you creatively complete objectives. And while yes, there might be a greater focus on story (though it's impossible to say for games that aren't out yet, story in God of War is nothing new), they're all telling very different stories. Pointing to Ellie and Atreus and saying TLOU and GoW are the same is a very lazy analysis IMO. 2. The developers of these games have all been out there talking about their visions of the projects. Quantic Dream have been making games like Detroit for well over a decade. Horizon started development in 2011, long before TLOU came out. Corey Barlog was approached by the head of SSM and GoW 2018 was his pitch to take the series in a new direction, as the old formula was worn out at the time. And so on. My take is the devs have naturally moved in their current directions based on their own interests, trends they've noticed and their own creative ideas. This isn't the first time I've seen this argument but I just don't understand it. It reminds me of when people say stuff like "Nintendo doesn't create new IPs" even though they've created plenty. Sweeping generalisations that you may feel are right but don't hold up under scrutiny. As always though, L&R

Hi allies! I'm the Òscar that wrote the email that was read the last, and wanted to reply to the podcast's discussion: First of all, I'd like to apologize for the unnecessary salt in my message - I should've read it before sending it, it comes across as way angrier than it should and doesn't highlight what I actually wanted to discuss. I think the good scores for TLOU and Uncharted are deserved, and Naughty Dog's an incredible developer that has kept showing their talent. I personally don't value these games as highly as most people do (I don't like their vibes!), but I completely understand their contribution to games as a medium. My point is: While these masterpieces should be taken as an example for what they did well, I can't help feeling that some marketing team somewhere is taking the most superficial cues from them to create a game that resembles to have a "soul" by mimicking what games with an actual "soul" have. Another way to state my point is: while you can (and to some extent should) clone Gears' cover system, Z-targeting and similar game-improving mechanics, to which extent can you clone "personality", "depth", "meaning" or "message"? Would we notice when something's made out of heart and something's just copying works made out of heart? That was what I meant with "I hate companies trying hard to affect my emotions". That was what I meant with "we should be more critical". I don't doubt the Allies' judgment and I think I got my answer when Ben mentioned those games that tried to clone Gears of War and failed. And BTW, I know the answer from lots of you will be "then don't play these games". I do play them just as I play many indie games that are exploring completely different things, but I want the industry to continuously move forward and keep improving, I (naively) want to see games as "works" and not as "products". In any case, thanks a lot for the discussion guys, it was great to hear you. L&R, Òscar

Òscar V

I'm glad Ys is getting some love. If you see this Huber, "Vaccine" looks like a game you might want to check out as the huge Resident Evil fan you are.

Alexander Mcloughlin

Is that a new EZA shirt Brandon is wearing? Can't find it on the merch store!

I see patreon is back to eating my comments, but now after reading comments I'm back to see there's an even better discussion happening. I'm glad you're sticking up for your opinion Ben, nobody should have their feelings or thoughts on a game dismissed just because it doesn't happen to line up to a few fans, baseless accusations like that make no sense. You can most definitely not think a game is worth it's asking price while still defending the finer points of the game and outline where it falls short, which is exactly what you've done. We're on a new gen for Nintendo, and this is a new IP. Granted not everything will always be perfect, and if they stick with ARMs in the future like they have with Splatoon then the next game will bring more to the table. We SHOULD be expecting more from them, because we WANT this console to succeed, we WANT nintendo to have new ideas and support new IPs.

ZyloWolfBane

Do comments in this post need to be approved? I'm sending a follow-up to my e-mail and it won't show for some reason

Òscar V

After hearing what they had to say about Arms, I'm hoping the June Group Stream tournament turns out well to justify it winning the poll. And I would love to see Jones and Damiani rip apart Amiibos on an episode of Friend Code.

Karl Williams

Also, you do unlock arms in Arms. Every character comes with their set specific 3 but you unlock different ones belonging to other fighters.

Isn't Overwatch $40? Part of the problem with game pricing is this whole new Tier prices that seem to be the trend( base edition $40, "Gold edition $60, "I get all future stuff edition" $100)

Arms deserves some criticism but I do have a few things to say. 1: Either make a solid single player mode or don't include it. Honestly the single player is throwaway and could easily just be replaced by a training mode because that's all it really is. 2: I personally enjoy the the mini games. They're a nice distraction from the tense 1 vs 1. VBall isn't as random as you make it out to be though. Putting spin and smashing is very important and becomes more challenging depending on the Arms that are being utilized. Which brings me to 3: I believe the characters are actually different enough to effect who has the advantage in the fight. The double jump is huge when it comes to executing a grab, mummy healing is huge if with a combination of keeping your distance and using advantageous arms you can knock down their attacks and continue to heal away or just being able to knock away attacks. Makes a big difference but not as big of a differense as what Arms you're using. 4: using certain arms can mean the difference between landing a hit or getting smoked. In the end it all comes down to your setup. (Also, getting the same arm twice in the minigame will strengthen that arm). I think like you guys said, the core is there but even I don't believe the game is worth 90$ in Canada. Oh 5. 2 vs 2 is okay but free for all is trash. You either team up with another player or you're the one fighting two people.

Please continue the fighting genre train Ben. I don't watch a majority of the allies streams but anytime I see you're doing competitive play with a fighting game I'm in, especially for Tekken 7.

Joey and Cait

Yeah the Hottake especially makes me livid. They are so inconsistent how they complain about microtransactions, especially whenyou look at Overwatch. And comparing the price points of Arms and Overwatch is terrible. Arms is going to have new content completely free while stuff like Overwatch and Injustice have microtransactions. Ben complaining how Arms has not enough content is totally fine, using it as some sort of awful example on how it is to expensive is not.

I feel like this episode preemptively snuffed anything nice I could say about ARMS almost in an impressive manner by a mixture of comparing it to other games such as Injustice 2 and Overwatch which both have very different longterm business models (paid DLC and loot boxes versus ARMS having no microtransactions and free DLC for life) and outright stating that ARMS is wrong for not barreling down one specific direction, (competitive or party game) despite later in the episode Huber talking about the value of intense 1v1 competitive games having less intimate side modes for people who want to enjoy the games without worrying about ranked and such, which was held as a positive for Injustice 2's multiverse but a negative for all of the sidemodes in ARMS. I could make a bullet point list for how systematically ARMS was criticized throughout this episode, not kidding I think you might have touched on every single aspect possible outside of like how the online performs or such, but the seedy cherry on top is near the end of the episode where ARMS is completely thrown under the bus as the game you now plan to use as a shining example to rebuke people who look at EZA as Nintendo fanboys. So why point all this out in a comment when the criticisms within the episode have defused most of anything I could say to respond to what was discussed in even the most basic attempt to endear the group to what ARMS does have going for it here and now as the personal feelings or vibe if you will of Michael P. Huber and Ben Moore towards ARMS is pretty crystal clear now to the EZA audience? Well that was your perspective, and this has been mine. L&R & Thanks for the episode

MBUN

Didn't expect this, best in the biz.

Nicholas Tubens