Lets be honest this game looks really good https://www.yout

is it releasing in II0XVII?

It only looks good if you've got no eyes.

>>378134372
Fuck off shill, seriously if you want someone buy your shitty hipster persona go to reddit they sure love to eat shit.

>>378134372
MAHOU HARU NO SHOUJO

File: 1471102786373.jpg (39KB, 540x390px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 540x390px

This game looks as good as Persona and Xenoblade and SMT. If you like those kinds of games, I bet you'd like this one.

However, since I hate cinematic experiences, I hate all of the above.

>>378134372
Everything about it looks like shit,and the combat is just ripping off Barkley but its way slower and looks to be disconnected from the combat itself, meaning there'll be no encounters cleverly designed for specific moves like in Barkley.

File: Fuck you trolls.gif (1MB, 428x769px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 428x769px

>>378134692
None of those games are cinematic experiences.

Tbh it looks like something I would really get into tone-wise. Urban fantasy sort of setting with high stakes

Too bad the mc is modeled after a fucking antifa Hillary supporter. That's really my only problem with it.

File: aww, how cute. they think they're video games.png (1MB, 904x2952px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 904x2952px

>>378134919

I'll get it if and only if it gets a physical switch release.

The concept sounds fun, the slow ass gameplay and the characters ruin it.

Maybe once it releases I'll pirate it.

Truly the Undertale of our generation.

File: 1487097447026.jpg (22KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 500x500px

>>378134997
That image predicts the responses because they're true, at least in the cases of some of those games. If a game is 100 hours long and is story heavy, it's naturally going to have more story content than a game that is shorter. Also, you said SMT is a "cinematic experience" as well, but the older games don't even have cutscenes, and if you take Nocturne as an example of an SMT game, it has an hour of cutscenes and the game is 50 hours long.

You're also retarded if you think just raw gameplay is all any game needs. There are plenty of games that would still be enjoyable if they had no graphics, music, or anything of the sort, but that doesn't mean those things don't add to the game. The gameplay should be at the core of it all, but that doesn't mean it's all they should be. It's like saying movies should exclusively just be nice visuals because you can just read a book if you want a story.

>>378135749
Stop responding to obvious fucking bait, you idiot.

Just report and ignore.

File: 1732505-finger_york.png (262KB, 632x321px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 632x321px

>>378135891
I have nothing better to do.

>>378135749

>If a game is 100 hours long and is story heavy, it's naturally going to have more story content than a game that is shorter.
Why does it need the story? If it wants to have context and worldbuilding, the gameplay mechanics should be able to do that on their own. Needing non-interactive cutscenes is laziness that says you didn't want to bother making a video game.

>There are plenty of games that would still be enjoyable if they had no graphics, music, or anything of the sort, but that doesn't mean those things don't add to the game.
In 99% of cases they take away from the game by sucking up the budget and resources and the developer's time, since they have to bugtest the game more when you bloat it with excess. That's why a game with Ps1 graphics and a Mario-tier plot will always be more fun than a next gen high res AAA cinematic movie game with all the bells and whistles. Sure, you can say the latter looks nicer and it's more "comfy" but then you run into the bugs and glitches and poorly balanced gameplay, and you soon realize that the high budget left them no time to properly test the game, and they had to push it for a holiday release. Whereas the small budget team had not much to worry about, since their game was moderate and they could focus all on the gameplay,, instead of worrying about frivolous garbage.

That's why overrated tripe like The Witcher and the Legend of Zelda will never be able to hold a candle to the simplest indie games, like Dwarf fortress. What's that? You want to charge me 60+ dollars for DLC that'll last me an hour before getting bored? That's nice, I'll just stick to this game where I get free DLC every day for 10+ years, and I contine enjoying it until my computer breaks from overuse.

To stay on topic, tell me that YIIK won't fall into those same problems. The developers have already said that "they'll be including an option to skip the gameplay for those artistic fans who hate videogamey stuff".

>>378136263
>Why does it need the story? If it wants to have context and worldbuilding, the gameplay mechanics should be able to do that on their own. Needing non-interactive cutscenes is laziness that says you didn't want to bother making a video game.
Because sometimes to tell a good story you need some actual dialogue and straightforward story content. It's ideal and praiseworthy to be able to tell a good story exclusively through gameplay, but it's also just not always realistic. And the reason you might still make it a game in spite of that is because the story doesn't have to be the only good thing about the game and in any half-decent game it won't be. Even if the story is told through non-interactive cutscenes, it can be supported and broken up through segments of good gameplay and worldbuilding. It's extremely close minded to assume a game has to choose between having good gameplay and good story when it can have both and even have the tow support one another.

>>378136263
>In 99% of cases they take away from the game by sucking up the budget and resources and the developer's time, since they have to bugtest the game more when you bloat it with excess.
This is blatantly untrue. God hand isn't impressive graphically,and it's main appeal is the gameplay, but that doesn't mean it would be just as good if it were just wire frame. Having good animations, good use of sound and so on lend the gameplay enhanced impact. You shouldn't deliberately gimp a game because putting in more work means more bug-testing, unless you want every game to just have no ambition and be the most barebones shit imaginable.

YIIK will have many problems because it's being made into a game not because the creators have any good reason to make it a game, but because it's hip and they don't have the talent to make it in another industry. And yes, of course an option to skip gameplay is awful, but I already said gameplay should be core to any game.

>>378134997
At least use proper grammar if you're going to be a pretentious little shit

Here I was thinking ACfag has left /v/

>>378137939

OP here; not him I just noticed that this game always gets replies

>>378137623

>Because sometimes to tell a good story you need some actual dialogue and straightforward story content
If you can't tie that into the gameplay, then perhaps it shouldn't be in the game. It would be more efficient to just cut it out entirely and make room for actual content.

>It's extremely close minded to assume a game has to choose between having good gameplay and good story when it can have both and even have the tow support one another.
I don't see it as close minded. I see it as an easily reproducible pattern that always comes from story heavy games. When you make your game story heavy, you stop caring about the gameplay because you're constantly thinking of ways to tell that story and have more of it shoved in the player's face, which leads to some very disgusting practices, be it unskippable cutscenes, hour long cutscenes, wasting the budget on voice acting, or even condemning the gameplay to nothing more than filler between story segments. It's easiest to see this kind of thing in games like Final Fantasy and Metal Gear, for example.

>we need to endear the player to the main character. Should we have them be fun to play as? Nah, let's have 8 hours of exposition with story segments that outright contradict the gameplay, like level 5 soldiers being able to instantly arrest and detain level 99 warriors who have god powers. who cares about consistency, right?

That's the problem in an interactive medium. Everything has to benefit the interactive portion. Otherwise it's the equivalent to a movie where the high budget voice actors are constantly getting in the way of the camera, thus ruining any cinematography or visual work put into the movie. it's also like those posters for movies, where a good movie like star wars or indiana jones will have an informational poster that shows you everything you want to see in a concise manner, while lazy garbage like Shrek will just have 3 characters looking forward. Your focus is in all the wrong places.

Is it called YIIK because that's what you say when you look at it?

>>378137623

(continued)

>This is blatantly untrue. God hand isn't impressive graphically,and it's main appeal is the gameplay, but that doesn't mean it would be just as good if it were just wire frame.
But that's untrue. The graphics mean nothing in the context of the gameplay. As long as you see what you're doing, it doesn't matter what everything looks like if the gameplay is still solid. It's how video games became a thing in the first place. We had to use imagination, and the budget was wisely spent on improving mechanics and performance, instead of trying to make that stubble on the main character look realistic enough to look like 5 o-clock shadow.

>Having good animations, good use of sound and so on lend the gameplay enhanced impact.
That's only when there's heavy moderation put into effect. Voice acting alone is a double edged blade that's killed more potential good games than saved. Shoot, any game with heavy amounts of dialogue have become almost impossible to import to other countries unless you incur heavy importing fees and localization costs. Meanwhile, a game like Gradius or Ikaruga are universally known for their gameplay, so you can literally just port them forward without a single line of dialogue translated (other than menus) and the game loses no impact.

>You shouldn't deliberately gimp a game because putting in more work means more bug-testing,
I don't mean to imply that. I'm saying that you should put your priorities in order and not waste money when it's not necessary. It's especially aggravating hearing Nintendo or sony cry about piracy, when they empty their wallets just to get the latest popular voice actor, whose hourly wages are higher than a year's salary of a coder.

>YIIK will have many problems because it's being made into a game not because the creators have any good reason to make it a game, but because it's hip and they don't have the talent to make it in another industry.
Exactly what I was saying.

>>378138452
>It would be more efficient to just cut it out entirely and make room for actual content.
It is actual content though, it's just content of a different kind. Again, it's like saying a movie shouldn't have a story because a book can do that. Do you think movies should just be pretty visuals and nothing more?

>When you make your game story heavy, you stop caring about the gameplay because you're constantly thinking of ways to tell that story and have more of it shoved in the player's face, which leads to some very disgusting practices, be it unskippable cutscenes, hour long cutscenes, wasting the budget on voice acting, or even condemning the gameplay to nothing more than filler between story segments.
All of this is abd, as is having instances where what occurs in cutscenes contradict what happens in gameplay, but that just means it's all been poorly done. I could just as easily say games should be just be story focused and putting effort into gameplay is stupid because Superman 64 has shit gameplay. It's disingenuous to point to examples of something being poorly done and behaving like that's the gold standard for everything of its kind.

Not everything has to benefit the interactive portion, but everything does need to ensure it does not hinder the interactive portion. If all a game has going for it is the story and the gameplay is just an obstacle in between story segments, that's bad design, if there are forced waling segments that cannot be skipped, that's bad design, and while these instances of bad design do happen, they don't happen in everygame. Cutscenes don't hold back the game so long as there's enough gameplay in it, because you can just skip them and get right back to the gamepaly. The story is not hindering the gameplay in this situation.

>>378139057
>But that's untrue. The graphics mean nothing in the context of the gameplay. As long as you see what you're doing, it doesn't matter what everything looks like if the gameplay is still solid. It's how video games became a thing in the first place. We had to use imagination, and the budget was wisely spent on improving mechanics and performance, instead of trying to make that stubble on the main character look realistic enough to look like 5 o-clock shadow.
The graphics may mean nothing in the context of the gameplay, but that doesn't mean they don't improve the game on the whole because, contrary to what you may believe, there's more to a game than just gameplay. It would be still be good if it were just wireframe, but it's enhanced by being more. In the time when we had to use our imagination for these things, it wasn't because it was a good design chose, it was because it was the only choice, we don't have to do that now because technology has improved.

>That's only when there's heavy moderation put into effect.
And? It still enhances the gameplay.

>I'm saying that you should put your priorities in order and not waste money when it's not necessary.
This is jsut common sense, but a lot of these things aren't wasting money. I'm not defending these companies hiring expensive voice actors, but the reality is, they're businesses, and people get charmed by VAs like Troy Baker and Nolan North. They'll make more money hiring them than actually spending money on improving the game. And it still doesn't change the fact that you shouldn't not put effort into a specific aspect of the game because it's going to bring more bug-testing and with it more work. If the devs consider this a important aspect of the game, they're just going to have to manage their time to get into the game right, bug tested and all.

>>378139254

>Again, it's like saying a movie shouldn't have a story because a book can do that
The purpose of a movie shouldn't be its story. It should be visuals, choreography, settings, environmental ambience, all the basics of cinematography. The story is simply there to set the stage. Whereas video games are an interactive medium, movies are a visual medium. They can do anything a book can't. So they need to play to their strength. And this shouldn't feel restrictive, because playing to the strength of your medium should allow for massive bouts of innovation. You can have a stylistic movie, a cartoony movie, a gritty movie, a down to earth movie, and etc. But if you're making a glorified book where two characters just sit around and talk for 2 hours, then you can bet your butt I'm gonna call it pretentious swill.

>but that just means it's all been poorly done. I could just as easily say games should be just be story focused and putting effort into gameplay is stupid because Superman 64 has shit gameplay
This is a little different, because even the highest praised movie games will always have these issues. Being "poorly done" is a direct result of having these cinematic elements in the first place.

>Cutscenes don't hold back the game so long as there's enough gameplay in it, because you can just skip them and get right back to the gamepaly.
Sadly, this is not true. You can't just "skip" a cutscene so easily in the world of cinematic games. Sure they say you can get past the large cutscenes, but every game I mentioned will always have load times because of the excess cutscenes, or giant amounts of text that you have to scroll through. And the talentless hacks behind the games don't know how to bypass those segments.

Somehow, it continues to look worse each and every time it gets posted. I don't know how they manage it, really.

File: 1461767330624.jpg (206KB, 700x700px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 700x700px

>>378134372
>unironically titling your game "postmodern"

>>378140139

>In the time when we had to use our imagination for these things, it wasn't because it was a good design chose, it was because it was the only choice, we don't have to do that now because technology has improved.
This is why people, including myself, sing the praises of stylistic graphical design, and cell shading, because it means you can give everything the basics of graphical presentation while never needing to blow your whole budget on "realism" and "super high def animations." Look at games like Zelda: Wind Waker, for instance. Despite being almost 20 years old, it still looks damn good today. That's the kind of graphical presentation games should strive for, instead of this Call of Duty/Uncharted cinematic circlejerk with realism. Because of that graphical presentation, Nintendo also had the ability to polish the gameplay since they didn't have to worry about realistic lighting or all that nonsense. Sure the game stil had major flaws, but at least you could say they didn't sacrifice the gameplay for the sake of jerking off to CGI.

>And? It still enhances the gameplay.
Only rarely.

>They'll make more money hiring them than actually spending money on improving the game.
And here we come to the biggest issue: treating video games like a business instead of something you make for the fun of it. This is why modern games are focus tested trash made by a council of suits, instead of people who have a passion for the medium.

File: 2017-05-26_1913.png (517KB, 763x719px) Image search: [Google]

517KB, 763x719px

Oh well.

>>378140502
>The purpose of a movie shouldn't be its story. It should be visuals, choreography, settings, environmental ambience, all the basics of cinematography. The story is simply there to set the stage. Whereas video games are an interactive medium, movies are a visual medium.
What makes a film unique should definitely be at its core, just like the gameplay in a game should be at its core, but to say they should be that and nothing more is just ridiculous. If pretty visual are all you care for you can just stick on National Geographic, but a good movie will tell its story by taking advantage of its medium, through visuals and the like. What makes the film unique form a book will not hinder it in this way, and if it's well done it will even enhance it. Similarly a good videogame will have its gameplay at its core, and it may have a good story to go with it, but so long as the game is well designed, that story will not hinder it.

>because even the highest praised movie games will always have these issues.
That's because videogame journalists are typically only so because they don;t have the talent to to critique film. Just because it's highly praised doesn't automatically mean it's good, and vidoegames that are good do have good gameplay and possibly a good story too, rather than being carried on the merit of their story alone.

If it's a good game, then yes you can. If you just focus in games made by Naughty Dog, then no you can't.

>>378141475
kek

>>378134551
fuck off /pol/

o wait wrong thread

what does the dev look like? is he the neckbeard in the middle?

>>378134372

no, actually it doesn't

>>378141517

>but a good movie will tell its story by taking advantage of its medium, through visuals and the like
See, I don't mind this, but the important thing is utilizing the medium. But this isn't what movie games do, and pretentious arthouse films don't do it either. What they'll do is use the medium as if it was a hindrance just to get you to their artistic vision. Again I point you to metal gear. everyone praises the "supposed" gameplay that supposedly exists, but they outright cry about how they'd never touch the game if not for the story, and that tells me everything I ever need to know about how bad the gameplay must be for people to hate it without the story backing it up.

>vidoegames that are good do have good gameplay and possibly a good story too
A good story in a video game is one that knows never to overstep its boundaries. it's there first and foremost to make the game have some context, nothing more. After, oh say, an intro cutscene, you should be able to enjoy the gameplay from there on without interruption. That's why a game like, oh say, Super Metroid will always have a superior story to any RPG in existence, including SMT or Persona or Final Fantasy.

>>378141170
>That's the kind of graphical presentation games should strive for,
I agree, but having an appealing artstyle still requires time and work and is appealing because it's a unique and timeless look, not just because it lets you imagine parts of it. Realsitc looks are only as good as the technology of the time they came out, but I've not been advocating realistic looks.

And those rare times when it works add to the game tremendoulsy, and have done so because they wre mad eby talented people. People should have the ambition to make great games, you shouldn't just say, "well it only works if you're very skilled, so people just shouldn't bother with it". A defeatist attitude like that keeps anything really great from being made.

>And here we come to the biggest issue: treating video games like a business instead of something you make for the fun of it.
I didn't bring up the voice acting, and I don't support treating games as business, but I'm just telling you the reality of the situation.

File: 1472946547694.png (174KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 400x300px

Wait, was this the shitty game that showcased bland, arbitrary combat with godawful music, writing and mechanics?

Yeah it's totally a good game my man.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hh5sKE17L3w

>>378142085
Also, I have things to do, so we'll have to end this here.

>>378142085

>I agree, but having an appealing artstyle still requires time and work and is appealing because it's a unique and timeless look, not just because it lets you imagine parts of it.
That's what I'm trying to argue. It took work to make a unique artstyle that isn't all about realism, but overall it emphasized minimalism in order to let the gameplay shine through. Again with Wind Waker, they didn't bother animating grass, for example, unless it was an active part of the gameplay, like cutting it down to find items. Otherwise, a flat surface more than sufficed. It's these kinds of small sacrifices that allow devs to really shine in their work and make actual video games, not cinematic experiences.

>but I'm just telling you the reality of the situation.
Oh I understand the reality of the situation all too well. It's why our industry is in the toilet in the first place.

>>378134372
The visual style works great on certain areas and with certain characters, but the actual game looks pretty bad to me. Even the combat that's supposed to be QUIRKY and FUN looks like a bad "persona meets the worst games of the warioware franchise" kinda deal - there's another indie game that's doing it better called knuckle sandwich and that looks far more promising than this

i can appreciate what they were going for, but i don't think they did it right

>>378134997
>playing pokemon for the story

>>378143607

I'd play it for the gameplay, but those 6+ hours are completely unskippable.

>>378134372

Lets be honest the devs need to stop shilling on /v/

>>378144187

OP not the dev just posting this thread to get the replies ?