Revisionist history. when those truly awful unliked unloved unplayed games are suddenly 'hidden gems' 'unknown master pieces' 'top 20 snes games YOU'VE NEVER PLAYED!'.
spare me. awful games are still awful games. E.V.O from Enix is an example of this.
Revisionist history, when games notorious for being piles of trash are in fact critically acclaimed masterpieces.
I don't really care for "hidden gem lists" from youtube and the like, but I actually liked E.V.O.
Not the best game I ever played but it was decently fun, the idea of evolving and how it was implemented was unique, and I liked the overall art direction and feel of the game. But I'm not gonna force anyone into liking it, if you didn't like it, then I'm OK with that. Or rather, I don't care.
I wish the actual cart wasn't so prohibitively expensive.
Truth. E.VO. is pretty cool, but it's grindy as hell and the boss battles are tedious.
It's fun if you found a novel concept in a pile of roms, but imagine if you'd shelled out $70 for it.
Who the fuck cares what a magazine reviewed it as? Are you seriously mad that someone enjoys a game because it didn't get a good review? Whoever put that in their video seems like a way cooler guy than you because he tries stuff out regardless of what people say about it.
There are many factors contributing to the rarity or obscurity of a particular game. Lack of hype, lack of marketing, limited releases, retarded reviewers. Tons of beautiful sprite-based games were panned by critics in the late 90's because they utilized dated sprite animation instead of 3D graphics, however ugly they might been.
Have none of these jumped your mind when you made your retarded post?
I think you're one of those dumb hipsters that think games with like 100k+ print runs are rare. Actually I'm quite sure you are at this point.
Let me guess. You think a game like Mischief Makers is rare?
Revisionist history: people took reviews about video games seriously before the internet and didn't just buy magazines to look at new shit.
>Do you have any actual arguments to support your position
Gee ya... All those amazing rare games.
Like pic related. Truly an example of greatness.
That's a rather unfair generalization. I agree that a lot of so-called "hidden gems" are rightfully overlooked, but I wouldn't write off every obscure game that garners a cult following as hipster trash. Some games just take a while to catch on, or were released on the wrong platform for the wrong generation.
I find it more absurd how people circlejerk over indie shit or Chinese bootlegs like FF7 for Famicom.
Most rare games are rare because they didn't sell. It has nothing to do with the quality of the game. Plenty of good games didn't sell well, and saying a game that sold millions of copies has to be good makes you look like a moron. If that were the case the best games every year would be sports games and COD.
“Hipster” is a term co-opted for use as a meaningless pejorative in order to vaguely call someone else’s authenticity into question and, by extension, claim authenticity for yourself.
It serves no conversational function and imparts no information, save for indicating the opinions and preferences of the speaker.
Meanwhile, a market myth has sprung up around the term, as well as a cultural bogeyman consisting of elusive white 20-somethings who wear certain clothes (but no one will agree on what), listen to certain music (no one can agree on this either), and act a certain way (you’ve probably sensed the pattern on your own).
You can’t define what “that kind of behavior or fashion or lifestyle” actually is, nor will you ever be able to. That’s because you don’t use “hipster” to describe an actual group of people, but to describe a fictional stereotype that is an outlet for literally anything that annoys you.
The twist, of course, is that if it weren’t for your own insecurities, nothing that a “hipster” could do or wear would ever affect you emotionally. But you are insecure about your own authenticity - “Do I wear what I wear because I want to? Do I listen to my music because I truly like it? I’m certainly not like those filthy hipsters!” - so you project those feelings.
Suffice it to say, no one self-identifies as a hipster; the term is always applied to an Other, to separate the authentic Us from the inauthentic, “ironic” Them.
"Hipster," contrary to popular opinion, is not a meaningless pejorative. A certain copypasta has perpetuated the lie that the term "hipster" is defined according to a type of clothing, music, or behavior, which cannot be properly defined, rendering the term meaningless.
In fact, "hipster" is not characterized by any of these things; rather, it describes a specific motivation, a psychological phenomenon, which can often be witnessed in humans.
To put it most simply, a "hipster" is an individual who values image over substance. For egotistical reasons, a hipster places their preexisting conception of an album, or their conception of themselves listening to an album, at a higher degree of significance than their biologically induced aesthetic enjoyment.
The egotistical motivations of the hipster are varied and numerous, but can include: The desire to fit in, the desire to not fit in, the desire to feel superior to others, the desire to feel equal to others, the desire to feel cultured or sophisticated, the desire to remind themselves of their knowledge of theory or technique, and so on.
This egotistical motivation serves as a substitute for the natural aesthetic pleasure which human beings have evolved the capacity to experience.
The twist, of course, is that hipsters must refuse to admit their egotistical motivations, for egotistical reasons. This pressures them into denying the accusation and even the meaning of the label which has been properly applied to them. Hence, the need to repeatedly paste the same poorly constructed lie every time reality confronts them.
tl;dr: if you deny hipsters exist, you are likely one
>To put it most simply, a "hipster" is an individual who values image over substance. For egotistical reasons, a hipster places their preexisting conception of an album, or their conception of themselves listening to an album, at a higher degree of significance than their biologically induced aesthetic enjoyment.
^this is the impulse insecure people are projecting when they call someone else a "hipster".
Check and mate.
>I didn't say all rare games are trash either.
>Probably only 3-5 games that could be called overlooked masterpieces
90% is pretty close to "all" buddy.
>We got /v/ invasion.
You see, I could shitpost about you being the /v/ermin for spouting hipster and /v/ boogeymen left and right like a true /v/ermin, but I won't, because I am no /v/ermin.
>trying to use masterpiece as some unreasonable buffer to hide a terrible argument.
You literally just said that most (really all) rare games are trash. There are plenty of rare games that range from bad, to decent, to good, to "masterpieces." There's plenty of trash, but there's also plenty of decent rare games that are good. A lot more than 3-5.
Because when you say shit like "most" followed by "only a handful that can be considered masterpieces" the mental picture that comes up is an absolute that implies there are only trash games and masterpiece games with no other options between the two listed.
>Ok you are definitely autistic with absolutes like that.
Again, stop projecting your personal qualities on other people. You're beginning to look sad.
99% of rare games are trash. Literally worthless.
Again I think you're hipster who thinks something like Earthbound is rare.
The Neo Geo thing is an exception and obviously you're taking this out of context with that.
>Neo Geo is an obscure console with a great library of games, can be considered rare to get these days
>but, but your taking it out of muh context and ruining my argument. It doesn't count wahhhhhh
It was much better than it is now, but it wasn't without flaws. You had a lot of people who were just straight up plebs and others that didn't want to rag on a bad games from popular franchises so as not to upset the status quo. There was also a period where anything 2D was considered cancer and 3D games no matter how shitty they were were put on a pedestal.
More magazines praised Sonic 3D Blast than knocked it down. Alot of them gave it 80 or higher
>Tons of beautiful sprite-based games were panned by critics in the late 90's because they utilized dated sprite animation instead of 3D graphics, however ugly they might been.
Can't say precisely panned but SF3 for one.
It's worthless because it's shitty, not because it's rare or obscure.
The Mortal Kombat franchise is an example of a popular best-selling franchise that has shitty gameplay for example.
First off the first Mortal Kombat on arcade was entertaining if anything. You can hate on the gameplay and reused assets. It was entertaining.
Modern Sonic is aimed at kids. Kids seem to like it.
Come to think of it those two games started the formula of investing more into marketing campaigns than the dev cycle itself.
Sanic had many cartoons and Mortal Kombat two movies and a whole tv series.
Well i don't know about your concept of unknown but i'm pretty sure there's thousands of unknown games that one day were sold on stores.
Just think about all the old computer stuff.
Mario 64 only came out a few months before Bubsy 3D in Japan and in the US only the month before.
Crash was great but wasn't true 3D in the moving sense as Mario 64 (and errr. Bubsy 3D as well), it was 3D on rails.
A better comparison is Jumping Flash! that came out a year before... yeah Bubsy 3D sucks but it was one of the first western produced truly 3D console games.
It in fact was slated to release on the 32X, which would've predated them all.
It was trying to pioneer. Too bad it's juuuust ugggghhhh...
A lot of rare games were either marketed like ass or came out at the end of a console's life.
Shantae (GBC) and Ducktales 2, Little Samson and Gimmick! are great games and are rare (at least in the west).
Shantae is a generic boring Metroidvania. Difficulty is even easier than SotN, it's full of farming and backtracking, the dance animations take far too long. It's only notable because it has the best graphics on the GBC.
Still, it sold less than 20,000 copies... that's a dirty shame. Some estimate it may have been lower than 10k.
It's a pretty fun game, and sold less than many God awful games on the GB/GBC.
Not even OP and it was kinda worth a playthrough if you're bored, but great? Amazing? Sending people to /v/? Really?
As a platformer it has boring levels that are mostly just flat horizontal planes with lines of enemies, the enemies aren't even that fun to kill, and it's out on the SNES, a system with a ton of good platformers with actual good level design you could be playing instead. As an RPG it's nothing special either, you'd do better playing an actual RPG, or if you want to have fun grinding and leveling up in a platformer play a metroidvania instead (which wasn't really much of a thing back then so points for innovation I guess). Plot is kinda nice but simple. OST is completely forgettable (but I admit it's a matter of taste here). Basically it's like this guy said:
>It's fun if you found a novel concept in a pile of roms, but imagine if you'd shelled out $70 for it.
Seriously, imagine if your parents came home with an E.V.O. cartridge instead of Mario, Mega Man, Castlevania, etc. It was properly rated as a mediocre game back then.
Ultima 6 on the SNES isn't as terrible as the other Nintendo ports of Ultima but not great either compared to the IBM original, the Towns port or nuvie, suffering from the limited input options.
It's also a re-import based on the Japanese SFC port so it's partly Japanese itself. Kind of stupid to review it four years after its original release and compare it to games that were created in its footsteps.
I just searched the game on wikipedia:
And looked at the "Reception" section. I did not do the proper research you were expecting, sorry.
Hipster did used to mean something. The gentrification of brooklyn and other shitty parts of metro ares by coming-of-age millennials were hipsters. I do agree now it means nothing and at best is 20 something millennial (another term i hate) culture and all of it's trimmings
>using subjective opinion to discredit a good game that sold poorly
>using subjective opinions from 20 years ago to argue that games that reviewed like shit that are in fact good, are shit because of dumb reviewers
How do I know this image isn't just the god awful SNES version of Ultima VI?
I'm not the OP. You also seem to be underage since you throw the whole CoD series under the rug as shit. Same with the Battlefield games. I assume you EA Sports Big. Pre that were some amazing games also.
This is rich coming from a kid who thinks rare games are shit when you've been given countless examples in this thread of games you've never heard of and clearly don't know what any of them are.
>opinions straight from /v/
When is /vr/ ever going to get over it's hate boner for /v/? It's your go to insult for everything. Anyways, most reviews of everything are just a collection of opinions. I've always been an advocate of deciding for one's self.
>Anyways, most reviews of everything are just a collection of opinions
Opinions are fine, and I get your point, but just giving vague statements isn't. Not when you're doing a review, at least. The reviewer just goes ahead and says that the main character falls flat, for example, but he never goes on to explain how so. This is why I used /v/ as a comparison, but it could easily be /a/, /tv/, or most fiction boards in 4chan; but we all know /v/ does it more than any other. They just go ahead and claim something is shit, but they never explain further. Of course, this also happens because of how overly fast the board is.
That's a fair point.
>They just go ahead and claim something is shit, but they never explain further.
That also happens here constantly which was more to my point. People talk about /v/ like it's so totally different from /vr/. It's faster, that's it. People on average are no more sensible here than there.
But I also agree with the other guy, most reviews both new and old are pretty bad.
Sonic 3D Blast was my first real dissapointment in video games. Coming of the huge adventure tying together and expanding on the core concepts of its prequels that was Sonic 3 & Knuckles, I was hype as fuck about the first semi-3d sonic. And then it was an awkward, painfully easy, kind of ok game with no more story or scenery porn. The isometric sonic for the game gear was a better execution of the concept.
How is that different from just plain looking for yourself? I still maintain that the feeling you get from booting up some random rom you've never even heard of and discovering a cool game you enjoy is better than any recommendation ever will be.
Because there are a ton of random roms out there, more than I want to spend all my time to sift through (I do more than just play video games with my free time), and more likely than not I will usually only play a ROM if the name sounds interesting, otherwise I ignore a ton of them. If someone has a strong enough opinion of a game to even add it to a hidden gems list at all, that might be enough for me to consider going back and trying a ROM I overlooked because the name didn't sound interesting. Sometimes I find something I like, sometimes I find crap and never play it again.
Well I find my opinions differ from other people's enough that lists of what someone else likes are rarely useful to me. I don't see it as "sifting" as much as just exploring games. But that's what I like to do. I love the feeling of starting to play something, not even knowing what kind of game it is. On the rare occasion that it's great I find it very exciting. It's cool if you do it another way, just thought I'd give a suggestion.
Also it doesn't take a ton of time. Many games I only play for 10 or 15 minutes if it doesn't interest me.
They do look like straight opinion from 4chan posts, to be fair.
>When is /vr/ ever going to get over it's hate boner for /v/?
Never, as /v/ got shittier and shittier over the time thanks to 4chan exposure into the mainstream over the course of the years. /vr/ is barely "ok".
I used to do that with ROMs a long time ago when I had more free time to spare. Plus the fact I had so many ROMs in massive dumps would typically lead me to spending only about 5 minutes or so before deciding to try something else, if it didn't immediately catch my interest in that time. Having too many to choose from makes me impatient, it's not like it was when these games were new and you either bought them or rented them and were then committed to giving them more than just 5 minutes. Sometimes hidden gens list actually take my attention back to ROMs I did play for a tiny bit and immediately put down, my curiosity over why anyone would consider it a hidden gem encourages me to play it longer than I did initially
Everytime I see a review taking massive paragraphs to talk about the soundtrack I shut down.
I don't get why everyone has such a boner for in game music. It should fit the mood of what's going on, or get you pumped up, but I don't really give a shit if it's bland, or generic, or forgettable. What I give a shit is gameplay. Sound effects are actually a lot more important than music in a game anyways.
Honestly, Tetris is just fucking dull to me.
It's not a bad game by any stretch, but it's just boring and bland. There are other puzzle games I'd prefer to play like Puzzle Bobble, Magical Drop or Lumines, just because they're a lot more visually stimulating. They aren't better or worse, Tetris is just boring to me.
People "exposing" hidden gems is just cancer all around.
Mostly because it's shit everyone already knows about. Everyone knows about SD3. Everyone knows about Hagane, Wild Guns, Earthbound.
The thing is no one talks about anything that is even remotely obscure or enjoyable.
See: Half-Life's fanbase
>noooo, how dare you not like Half-Life? It got perfect scores in 1998, so that means it's the greatest and best most influential game of all time forever and ever and ever
The other elements of revisionist history that I fucking hate are when suddenly, something like the N64 "kicked the PSX's ass!", when it lasted 4 years, to the PSX's 10, and it dropped out because PSX was outselling it in droves. So... Yeah.
And then there's shit like "X game ALWAYS sucked! Gamers back then just didn't know any better!" I mean, OK Resident Evil's control scheme is understandably irritating to noobs and modern gamers, but bad? No. Just no. Sorry. Unless of course literally unplayable messes can sell millions of copies and help reshape the entire industry forever.
But yeah, the whole "le hidden gem" thing is easily the worst thing ever. Like how we all knew for a fact that Zelda 2 was a pile of shit for how many decades? But now it's "the NES' Dark Souls!" which is utter bullshit in and of itself. Never mind the "it's not THAT bad" argument.
Oh, and I also hate it when suddenly games like OoT are meme games. Not bad, per se, but liked to an unrealistic extent all of a sudden. Like, OoT was reasonably and understandably popular for a long time. ut now there's people on thsvery board who make outlandish an simply false claims about it' impact and importance in the industry. Like how Z-targeting changed games forever, when less than 1% of games ever made used it...
Or I've even seen a person claim that NO other game ever had a vehicle in it...
OoT's good, even great, but get off it's dick already. Jesus...
But hey, who am I to point things out? Right?
It got an 88 average back in the day.
You just had the wrong expectations. You really wanted it to continue off S&K and it's clear it wasn't ever going to be that. It's not even a Sonic game. But as an isometric platformer it's one of the best ever made, definitely the best on Genesis. Plus it looks and sounds amazing on both the Gen and Sat. And that Saturn special stage hnng
>Ranked below DW2
Keep in mind Zelda 2 is the 5th BEST selling game on the system(lotta people loved LoZ, including those that didn't usually game, so name recognition). Hell, it's ranked lower than fucking Bart VS The Space Mutants, and that game didn't sell near as well and was no where near as good as Zelda 2.
SOME people enjoyed it, others were disappointed it wasn't like the first game. It wasn't loved, but it wasn't hated either. Reception was tepid among gamers, I don't remember anyone having a strong opinion about it either way.
This is easily the single worst thread on /vr/ right now.
>ALL OBSCURE GAMES ARE SHIT THEY'RE OBSCURE FOR A REASON
>FUCK YOU FOR HAVING A DIFFERING OPINION, YOU CONTRARIAN, WE ALL KNOW IT'S A SHIT GAME
>HA, YOU CALL THAT OBSCURE? LITERALLY EVERYBODY KNOWS WHAT THAT IS! TRY A REAL OBSCURE GAME, LIKE [equally not obscure game]
Seriously, I'm disappointed in every single one of you.
Fuck off zelda 2 is great, and i don't get why you brought OoT into the discussion, that aint a hidden gem at all, you seem to be butthurt just because a nintendo series is popular.
>Back then it was actually pretty legitimate
Not him, but I still find the older reviews to be more accurate in general.
Back then people actually beat the game they were reviewing and they would have time to sit and think about it before publishing it.
Nowadays reviews seem based more on first impressions rather than the experience of the whole game. And the reviews come out before anyone can think about what they wrote. And modern reviews tend be fucking long and rambling with no sense of humor.
Game music is never really spoken about in regards to the game as a whole. "The music is good" doesn't touch at all on how it may or may not have been effective in the game's overall concept or how the choice of music effects the player's experience.
It's almost always just "I like these songs, too!"
>older reviews to be more accurate in general
I too remember the dynamic learning AI the bosses of DKC2 had.
>"And finally... the future of video game reviews"
I think your problem is expecting "hidden gems" to be 10/10 masterpieces with universal appeal rather than lower profile games that small amount of people liked for some very specific reason. I didn't like EVO myself but I see the reasons someone might.
>The thing is no one talks about anything that is even remotely obscure or enjoyable.
We live in the age where milllions jobless fucks with nothing to do have access to internet and can pirate pretty much every game in existence, in this situation the only thing that can keep games with even a little bit of worth hidden is the language barrier, so the only "gems" left to expose are the ones English speaking public wouldn't be able to play anyway.
At least until some fan translators step in and it becomes next SD3 and everyone instantly knows about it.
Damn dude, just because you tried to write as if you were actually assessing things critically doesn't magically make it so. You make certain fundamental assumptions about the motivations of hypothetical strangers, the range of which are so broad that some of them are tautologically opposed to one another.
You also assume that "biologically induced aesthetic enjoyment" is a sentence that actually means something.
90% of this thread is one underaged, bipolar idiot having an episode while everyone else tells him a hundred reasons why he's wrong. I seriously think it's some moron with histrionic personality disorder (ironically) angry about how everyone is just so wrong and stupid.
>The thing is no one talks about anything that is even remotely obscure or enjoyable.
I sometimes think to start a series unearthing stuff truly obscure in the west, but it's not like the westerners would be able to play any of them.
Although if it inspires someone to start learning Japanese maybe it would worth it.