Microgame design.

You feel it with a lot of combat systems. Making it a series of unrelated mechanics gives the appearance of depth and cinematic flow. Dodge blue, parry red, cinematic health chunker. Maybe you bite their heels along the way but it does little.

More warioware than final fight.

I'm maybe too hard on cozy games, but for a genre where aesthetics are everything they can feel very divorced from actual culture. I want comfy games that feel like a part of the culture they represent, not repackaged to a very specific set of sensibilities. Gentrified is the word I'm grasping at.

Think where I disagree with the video is RLM never came off like they were trying to truly fix things. They know film 101 isn't enough to save a movie. I see the Plinkett reviews more as Mike being aware of the prison he is trapped in. From nostalgia, to the system, to loving the medium.

Objective review has come to, but shouldn't, mean a back of the box list of features, specs and selling points.

When it could actually sum up preference while maintaining a level of objectivity. But that requires somewhat deeper analysis, and a grip of design language.

There's a real chance this just is a case of me not understanding the game even as someone who knows KF. But considering you have to check the control bindings on how to do basic moves, it doesn't quite have that invisible nudge down.

More I play the more I abuse most enemy's lack of range, or that special attacks do a lot of damage for no stamina. Feels less like I'm learning the game's intended play, and more like I'm abusing things cause enemy health is so chunky.

You start King's Field (2) and everything seems tough, but you poke the sides and feel where you can make it through. Take it slow and you make it. QD, each path has laser eyes that you need throwing daggers to deal with, which are at the end of the path. So bum rush.

The One Piece was on Epstein Island this whole time!

It's important to notice the difference between a game being flawed cause it went all in on an idea, and a game being flawed cause it was scared to commit.

Ironically I find BotW interesting cause it at least did think about those issues. It tried to build around total freedom, and such an extreme idea inevitably creates a lot of flaws. But that's at least more interesting that taking a linear game and goasting the map.

Open world has numerous issues that few games seem interested in trying to grapple with. But rather than discuss how an open design inevitably creates contradictions. It's just this game bad cause other game. And I think that contributes to games bouncing between trends rather than growth

I feel like his idea for every country to be turned into a neo version that floats above the ground where Gundams fight, still holds revolutionary value.

Prime 4 manages to break core tenants, but doesn't even commit to the bit. You could tell an interesting military scifi story in Metroid, probably shouldn't considering history. Experiments are allowed

Yet the plot and characterisation is sparse and uninteresting. The fumble on Sylux is incredible

I like Dread, but it does also suffer from linearity. Perhaps this is just chance from who Nintendo choose to work with.

People often blame the sales in Japan, but Souls and other series have shown the core ideas in some fashion can be popular there. At some point it simply seems like Nintendo doesn't want what metroid offers.

Personally like Mapformer

Search Action, but they've also slightly adopted metroidvania.