TheDarkKnight774
Member
As a separate video yes. But they have spoiler mode like episodes for the last Guardian and FFXV in frame trap late last year
And I don't think you have to be a fan of the game to be in a spoiler mode episode.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Easy Allies |EZOT2| Love & Respect
- Thread starter Auctopus
- Start date
- Status
And I don't think you have to be a fan of the game to be in a spoiler mode episode.
With that branding, sure. But they did over an hour and a half of discussion on FFXV including spoilers on Frame Trap.
https://youtu.be/HgONHm1_tsE
Well I'd say it's even better then! Good to get different views and opinions in the discussion. I hope he will partake in Nier Automata Spoiler Mode if there is one.
Oh yeah, would love allies to give even a bit recognition to Tides of Numenera and Thimbleweed Park. From my understanding they weren't big PC guys growing up. But both of these are spiritual successors to some of the greatest games ever made, no matter the platform. Which also brings me to Planescape Torment and Full Throttle remasters. Somebody please play these games, would love to hear some thoughts in upcoming Frame Traps. These all games are kind of a big deal.
Like Brad said there's been plenty of games they have more of personal investment in, but it's cool to try something different and get more perspective on games. Especially on the Remasters, do they hold up! It's even better if someone without the nostalgia goggles is playing these.
LiquidSolid
Member
His approach to the game, mainlining through it just to get to Persona 5, seems like the absolute worst way to play that game. It's a pity because I'm fairly close to the end of Persona 5 (late November) and Nier's still easily my GOTY.
I love Persona 5 but I've reached a point where I've stopped making excuses for the localisation.
Holundrian
Unconfirmed Member
Has Damiani ever done a content piece that required research without doing the research?
If not, people should ask themselves if they're being fair with their complaints that for now just boil down to whining about someone not playing the game in a way one deems as optimal. You can mainline Nier and then do the side stuff right at the end or you can get into the side stuff through the community ala Dark Souls. And there is very much value to opposing perspectives if that's how he feels about it(he might not). That was my whole point it's very weird to me then how the discussion then shaked out. I felt like it was unfair to prematurely voice concerns when I'm not aware of a history of Damiani half assing his stuff very much the opposite so far.
If not, people should ask themselves if they're being fair with their complaints that for now just boil down to whining about someone not playing the game in a way one deems as optimal. You can mainline Nier and then do the side stuff right at the end or you can get into the side stuff through the community ala Dark Souls. And there is very much value to opposing perspectives if that's how he feels about it(he might not). That was my whole point it's very weird to me then how the discussion then shaked out. I felt like it was unfair to prematurely voice concerns when I'm not aware of a history of Damiani half assing his stuff very much the opposite so far.
Primethius
Banned
If Damiani is not enjoying Nier, is it really a good idea to expect him to do the side stuff in Nier?
Those side quests are some of the most poorly designed side quests in a game this year and they are pretty much dreadful to go through (especially with how boring the world traversal is) and about the only enjoyable aspect of them is the story connections and writing itself.
Those side quests are some of the most poorly designed side quests in a game this year and they are pretty much dreadful to go through (especially with how boring the world traversal is) and about the only enjoyable aspect of them is the story connections and writing itself.
Holundrian
Unconfirmed Member
Yes it is essential. Cause if we follow this line of thinking that it's ok to skip on things you don't enjoy then we're encouraging the laziest of criticism which is content with formulating "I don't like this" in the fanciest ways.
I very much believe to form an insightful opinion and to communicate it in a relatable way you need to experience the thing your speaking about whether you end up liking it or not. Well maybe let me rephrase you need a very deep understanding of it that would likely include an understanding of why other people find it compelling. And in the case of Nier:A I don't think you can get that kind of understanding without experiencing it.
Of course I'm referring to things in context to the overall story with that I'm not speaking about experiencing it from a gameplay perspective. As I already said my personal preference for a Spoiler Mode on Nier:A would be to focus on themes and story instead of long discussions of how gameplay related to one person's enjoyment or metric of fun.
Mostly cause I've generally put a lot of disclaimers in my recommendation of Nier:A to my friends.
I can easily see the game not connecting depending the mindset people play it in or people mistaking it for a Bayonetta type of game where they just enjoy the surface action. Nier:A is not that kind of game. It's very easy to miss out on the qualities that make it one of the most compelling games this year cause it asks the player to invest in it. And it's always a struggle for these type of games people need to get used to the mindset/ideas and readjust. You can see that with the Souls like or Mobas that also ask players to invest instead of just spoon feeding them.
So with that I think I'm kind of mostly already aware of most gameplay related issues one could have, to me that discussion wouldn't be that interesting.
Labrynian Rebel
Member
Primethius
Banned
I don't agree and I don't see how that encourages lazy criticism.
If the game put important context and content behind side quests, especially poorly thought out design that can be a bore to play, that is precisely the type of criticism that the player needs to be able to make with or without having played said content. That is the games flaw.
the game doesn't put any important context behind sidequests, the main story is all in the mainquest. sidequests have some interesting details, and the locked chest contain reports from the original nier, but it's stuff for completionists
Holundrian
Unconfirmed Member
You may not agree but that is just the reality I see. Most evidently in people complaining about the Souls games. Their criticism to me has often read as shallow and just utterly lacking in understanding of the game not going to say names but there are people working at very popular sides just having the most boring surface level opinions that are a result of lazy criticism that never goes beyond "I don't like this herpdiderp"(and I don't take issue with people not liking something, it just isn't very interesting to read or hear about).
Compare that to Matthewmatosis or Joseph Anderson people that put in the work to work out their issues because they actually give a shit and go the mile to really experience something through and through building a very strong understanding of the thing they're criticizing... there just isn't any comparison really.
Primethius
Banned
Right, Automata doesn't have much of that. So what's the point of having Damiani play through side quests in a game he doesn't seem to be enjoying?
They're optional, don't contain any important context behind them and aren't necessary to understanding the main story, which is presumably what the bulk of a spoiler podcast will be focused on.
Souls and Nier are very different though. The former you can pretty much beat without ever
really delving into any lore/story where as the latter has the fairly traditional method of conveying story to the player. Unless your skipping cutscenes, you pretty much get most of the story of Automata through the main routes and you can analyze those with a fair amount of depth.
Unlike a Souls game, optional content in Automata adds to the story, it isn't the story itself.
Edit: In fact, the analysis of Niers main story requires one to be quite comprehensive regardless. Nier requires a thematic analysis where as most Souls is piecing together the story. In that regard, Damiani having beaten the side content is way down on the list when it comes to meaningful analysis and criticism of the game.
Holundrian
Unconfirmed Member
I don't know why you began arguing about the differences of Souls and Nier in respect to their stories/lore. That doesn't relate to the argument I was making in any way nor does it refute my argument or strengthen your counterargument. It just changes the conversation to a different topic which I find confusing and seems to only lead to further and different arguments until the original one is lost. So I don't really have anything to say on that front.
I'm limiting myself in this case to my main argument of how fundamental understanding of something often/mostly only gained through your own experience of something produces more fundamentally interesting criticism.
Edit: Although I will disagree hard on getting most of what Nier:A is about through the main story alone. That seems like an incredibly surface level view of things to me. The main story communicates certain core aspects but side content fleshes it out in interesting ways.
Saying the side story is enough to me would be the same as only being content with looking at Persona 5 through mainly the core story while ignoring all the interesting nuances/takes/exploration the Confidant stories and sidequests bring to the overall themes. Some people might be content with that I would be disappointed.
lolPlease don't retcon Pomper's parents, he wrote them a nice letter only 24 hours ago
I completely forgot about that. Pomper must really miss his parents, if he's writing to them, knowing full well that they'll never get to read the letter. Either that or he believes that his words can somehow reach them in the afterlife. He is a cleric, after all.
Primethius
Banned
Sorry, I guess I misunderstood your post. And I'm honestly a bit confused as to your point.
A game like Nier is thematically deep and much, if not most of that is conveyed through the main story. How does Damiani crit pathing the game limit his ability to analyse the game on deeper level?
LiquidSolid
Member
Uh, who's whining or complaining? You're overreacting. Personally, I don't care if he's on spoiler mode or not, I'd just like him to enjoy a great game. Right now he clearly isn't, which is fine, I'm not demanding he enjoy it, I just think his approach is one of the main reasons why he isn't enjoying it.
Holundrian
Unconfirmed Member
I don't quite understand how this isn't self evident but in the simplest terms because he would only be able to speak about the main story and not about the side quest. Like take a potential Yakuza 0 Spoiler Mode for example. Would you be content if it was only about the Main Story skipping out on all side quest and how they relate to that era of Japan in comical/interesting ways and the commentary some of them might be making? Or would you want to have that Spoiler Mode were all these aspects are also discussed. Like to me you're basically arguing that somehow a less informed opinion is just as good as a more informed one which I have yet to see evidence for. Quite the opposite so far in my life I've generally seen a strong relation between people having interesting points to make and their understanding of an issue/degree of being informed about something .
Twitch chat definitely was at the time. I was basically apologizing cause I imagined that I wasn't helping the enjoyment with my comments at the time.
TheDarkKnight774
Member
But that's why you have more than 2 people in the discussion. To provide different perspectives and play styles. And as someone who spent a lot of the side quests there are some that help the world building and context but not anything that would dramatically change my thoughts on the main story or game as a whole.
Holundrian
Unconfirmed Member
You played Persona 5 yet? I ask cause it's really the easiest analogy I can come up with right now. What you're saying would 100% apply to Persona 5 too. Would people be content with a discussion that only focuses on the mainstory without going into how the different Confidant story lines relate to the mainstory. Flip and twist the core themes in different and interesting ways? Some would probably. I'm not one of them. I assume there is likely a good amount of people that probably would be disappointed if a Persona 5 Spoiler mode would be limited to that cause people did 0 Confidants/Sidequest/engaged in 0 outside activities.
If it's not clear I regard Nier:A sidestuff on the same level of relevance to the core story in certain ways as I do the Persona 5 Confidant stories. That is to say they're essential in the sense that they add much to what makes both games interesting.
TheCowboyPoet
Member
Just catching up on some things....
Nope, definitely not Prince Sidon.
That's it, thanks! I don't know why my fellow Allies were doubting me.
I love BOTW as much as anyone, but just to be fair I felt like I had to point out that there are tip windows like what they were discussing.
Nope, definitely not Prince Sidon.
That's it, thanks! I don't know why my fellow Allies were doubting me.
I love BOTW as much as anyone, but just to be fair I felt like I had to point out that there are tip windows like what they were discussing.
Primethius
Banned
Yes, I'd be content because I disagree with framing the opinion as a "less informed" one. That opinion doesn't have the same scope as opinions about side content sure but that doesn't somehow remove the depth with which someone could tackle the main story's analysis.
It's not less informed and it's certainly not lazy criticism.
Holundrian
Unconfirmed Member
This literally does not logically compute for me and I think we're at an impass with that. To me in that sentence is an intrinsic admittance of the opinion being less informed. Am I somehow just confusing English here? Not a native speaker. Maybe I'm fundamentally misinterpreting something about the sentence.
:/
Primethius
Banned
I mean, I think my view is similar to how I'd assume most people view movies for example. Those that have extended universes or info outside of the main movie.
An analysis of the main movie isn't less informed but is one lesser in scope. That's the way I see it.
Maybe they just didn't notice them? The only appear once anyway, and they are fairly unobtrusive, although they do make that short ringing sound.
Or maybe they just don't appear at all, if you use the Pro HUD? Not sure.
Holundrian
Unconfirmed Member
Isn't that the same like am I not understanding something here? I would not debate someone knowing all that outside info being more informed.
Am I not understanding something about the word "scope"? Does it not describe in this context the range of possibly relevant information one has for their consideration to form some kind of opinion/perspective? -> Thus lesser scope -> less information available?
Outside of that the implication of equating outside material from different mediums to the same relevance of content that is very much within the same game also seems like a strange thing to me.
Edit: Reading your statement and correct me if I'm wrong but it seems like your argument seems to relate more to the merit of criticism that is intentionally limited vs one that is not? Which is a honestly a different argument for me, one where my stance would be "It depends".
Primethius
Banned
Less informed to me implicates a person's understanding and/or their ability to fully understand something presented to them.
Where as scope is just the general extent of what your opinion is based off of and I don't see them as the same at all. It's not as if every side quest in Nier ties back to the main story in a meaningful and impactful way.
Thus, you can have a very well informed opinion on Niers story and themes based on the (limited) scope of the main story.
Holundrian
Unconfirmed Member
I might be too stupid
I've read this a few times but that sentence really confuses me.Yes being less informed can influence your understanding of things?(There are so many examples in the world of this? It seems like a self evident truth to me.)
But also yes you can understand things to the degree you're informed with?(Not debating that, yes you can have an informed opinion to the degree you're informed with? But that seems to me like saying 1=1 ) Also general extent of what? Information? xD The semantic confusion and doubt is getting real.
Edit:
Less informed(the state of having less information?)
to me implicates(describes?)
a person's understanding and/or their ability to fully understand something presented to them.(this entire thing is weird to me)
Let's split it:
Less informed to me implicates a person's understanding.(?)
Less informed to me implicates their ability to fully understand something presented to them.(?)
Primethius
Banned
Ok let's break this down like I'm stupid pls cause this is very confusing to me.
I might be too stupid
Yes being less informed influences your understanding of things?
But also yes you can understand things to the degree you're informed with?
Also general extent of what? Information? xD
The semantic confusion and doubt is getting real.
Here's my take on it:
In the context of Nier, someone who doesn't know of certain philosophers or certain philosophical lines of thought or just generally their familiarity with that knowledge base will offer less insight compared to someone who does. Even if the latter did the crit path and the former 100%'d it. There's more to the analysis of the main story than just what's presented in the game.
But it's fine. Just my view, I'll drop it.
Elfforkusu
Member
I agree with this.
But I would also say that I don't give works of art a free pass in either direction (positive or negative) based on themes or meaning of previous works. A movie is what it communicates from minute 0 to the end. What the prequel did shouldn't influence my judgement of it -- apart from the obvious stuff like story details that might otherwise not make sense.
tl;dr: you don't have to read the Silmarillion to have an opinion on Lord of the Rings.
Holundrian
Unconfirmed Member
Yes absolutely. Totally agree with this.
But what trips me up is that it seems like the argument is that Nier:A's sidequest are the Silmarrillion in this. And the second argument that seems to be going on is that somehow someone that has read the Silmirallion wouldn't have a better understanding on the Lord of the Rings mythos.
How so? Quantitatively less insight? Or less insight depth wise?
The former not necessarily given that people can provide insight in a different context than the philosophical angle.
The latter sure as long as it pertains to the philosophical angle. Of course the one with that knowledge will offer more insight than the one without it.
But look what if we expand that premise to two people that share the same philosophical knowledge. One has experienced only the crit path the other 100% it.
Wouldn't the latter have more things to provide insight on given that he has experienced more things of the game?
Elfforkusu
Member
I haven't done much with Nier:A since Zelda appeared -- haven't even gotten to the first ending, I'll go back into it soon -- but I'd say that while I'd expect events to be more meaningful (emotionally, maybe even symbolically) depending on what optional content a player goes through before reaching them, it is still optional content. In so far as the choices you make fundamentally alters the way you experience the story, I'd argue the game is being ambiguous, whether intentionally or otherwise. If so, there's no single "correct" interpretation. Adding the additional content doesn't just increase your understanding of "the story" -- your story was different from other people's. It's as if you watched a different cut of the same movie.
It's one of the more compelling aspects of games as an art form, IMO
Primethius
Banned
Right, the scope of what he can provide the insight to has increased: main story vs. main story + side content.
That doesn't make the main story analysis less informed, just more contained. Maybe the main story analysis didn't make a thematical connection with some side quest or believed that an answer was left vague when in fact it had been answered in a side quest.
I just don't see that main story analysis being less informed or of being inferior quality because it is contained to just the story as presented.
I would argue that in a discussion environment, such as the EZA spoiler cast, it's beneficial to have someone who only largely did the main story as presented. To offer that insight as to whether or not the story works standalone as well as it does with expanded content.
Edit: Anyways, that's just my view on things. I'm gonna step out of the discussion as I do agree with you, we are at an impasse and I keep getting distracted from work
Holundrian
Unconfirmed Member
Because you bring the optional aspect of it, I'd argue that also extends to the endings A-Z. Every action you take for that game is optional.
Really all I'm saying is that someone experiencing all that game has to offer will have by very definition a more informed opinion on the game.
And to criticize the sidequest on a story level one likely has to experience them. Like what's the criticism realistically going to be otherwise on that if you skip them? It would likely be limited to the presentation aspect of them not being strong. Not a terribly interesting angle on that for me. I'd just rather listen to interpretations to maybe the statements the game makes in regards to the merits of humanities recreational pursuits just as an example(and sidequest do contain a few takes on that). That's a more interesting discussion to me compared to oh well the presentation of the sidequest didn't make it very fun or compelling to do them.
plasmawave
Banned
That podcast halftime interruption was the best.
Labrynian Rebel
Member
Fanon accepted.
TheDarkKnight774
Member
They went over 6100 patrons. Setting new EZA records
Man-is-Obsolete
Member
Wow the BM from S2PID_US was amazing. Setting up "T" spins on purpose was vicious. And then that entire screen combo on Don...so good.
Primethius
Banned
Both the podcast halftime and the ending were hilarious.
Kyle is just such a hilarious moderator.
Kyle is just such a hilarious moderator.
My criticism of the side quests is that they were extremely dull. Sure, there's a few things there when I started doing them early on which are interesting, but they're not worth the time put into the mostly boring "go here and kill some dull enemies and bring me the pickup".
I've looked up a lot of the side quest outcomes and it doesn't feel like I missed anything from the main story. If in was forced to okay through them, I'd have a much lower opinion of the game, so having that content as 100% optional is both in the games favour and not something that should stop someone from contributing to an episode of spoiler mode.
Persona-Update, woo!
Around 37 hours in and the game keeps getting better. The character are leaps and bounds more engaging than in P4 and so is the story, it's not really a fair fight. The dungeons are leagues and leagues... and leagues better and a stand-out.
What I still don't like...
+ Stealth sucks
+ The game takes way too long to get going, even if it seems that it would be okay to have such a long beginning in proportion to the game's overall length - Well, no, no it isn't. In hindsight it really doesn't surprise me why the game had a hard time leaving an impactful impression on me right from the start.
+ As mentioned before... some creepy unnecessary shit on the side.
+ I said this in the dedicated dicussion thread on this topic, but I don't like the philosophy of the MC dies, you die-game over mechanic. And while I agree that it balances certain combat mechanics of Persona and thus fits to a degree, it feels more like a patchwork afterwards than a true and necessary pillar of the game.
Otherwise my overall opinion took a serious turn to the positive (Not that my previous "around 4 stars" assessment" wasn't positive, just less enthused) as the systems flow together in a way P4 e.g. never did for me. I'm quite impressed.
Around 37 hours in and the game keeps getting better. The character are leaps and bounds more engaging than in P4 and so is the story, it's not really a fair fight. The dungeons are leagues and leagues... and leagues better and a stand-out.
What I still don't like...
+ Stealth sucks
+ The game takes way too long to get going, even if it seems that it would be okay to have such a long beginning in proportion to the game's overall length - Well, no, no it isn't. In hindsight it really doesn't surprise me why the game had a hard time leaving an impactful impression on me right from the start.
+ As mentioned before... some creepy unnecessary shit on the side.
+ I said this in the dedicated dicussion thread on this topic, but I don't like the philosophy of the MC dies, you die-game over mechanic. And while I agree that it balances certain combat mechanics of Persona and thus fits to a degree, it feels more like a patchwork afterwards than a true and necessary pillar of the game.
Otherwise my overall opinion took a serious turn to the positive (Not that my previous "around 4 stars" assessment" wasn't positive, just less enthused) as the systems flow together in a way P4 e.g. never did for me. I'm quite impressed.
I think an analysis of the P5 main story only would be completely fine and very interesting - Mostly due to the fact that the main story is much better written than the confidant bits. The confidant stories just reiterate the themes already present in the main story for the most part.
I think a lot of what you are arguing is logically sound but very silly from a real world perspective.
Holundrian
Unconfirmed Member
Proving my point kinda. That is neither interesting nor insightful criticism.
That doesn't mean that it isn't valid or has no merit. It definitely has in the context of a review that statement prefacing an explanation of the presentation aspects is absolutely a good point to make.
But if we were to come together to discuss the game in the most interesting ways and dive as deep on it to the best of our both abilities I'm not going to lie that's a disappointingly shallow opinion to have. In such a discussion and I'm repeating myself I'm not really interested in the "fun" factor or entertainment factor discussion of the sidequest. That isn't why they're interesting. The sidequest are interesting in how the add to the overall story, Taroverse lore, statements they make.
That statement is kind "oh I didn't miss anything I experienced". That is like someone only experiencing route A saying I didn't miss anything about the first part of the main story. I had a complete experience. Which honestly is a fine opinion to have. It's just not encouraging in the way of a discussion that wants to go deeper.
You might have a lower opinion of the game if you were forced to play through them but my point is your opinion would likely be more interesting to listen to cause you could speak to the thematic successes and failures of the quest, their integration of the main story, their resonating or totally appalling messages, etc etc.
I'm not saying it stops someone from contributing I'm saying I'd be disappointed at the likely extent of that contribution given the limits it will be based on.
For me it would be akin to someone doing a book report based on a wikipedia summary instead you know reading the book.
I mean that I guess I can accept that most people seem to be fine with less than with more. Disappointing I guess but can't argue with that really.
I strongly disagree on that Confidant part as far as quality of writing is concerned but I'm reluctant to start that discussion given that I have not played the game in English.
I'll leave this here again https://twitter.com/iiotenki/status/814615451393257472 at this point cause I think parts of it express very well how certain disconnects can happen given that sometime the nuanced difference in reference points can drive different conclusions.
I bring this up based on prior experience with certain character storylines where I found the conclusions the west had hard to relate to based on nuanced decisions the localization has made that I was simply unaware of. Basically I learned it's a mistake to assume that we're experiencing essentially the same version of something.
Yes, it probably would be a deeper discussion, but I'd rather have more voices to the spoiler cast than less. It's a failing of the game to not make them more engaging and instead be mostly limited to fetch quests bar a couple of stand outs. Those that did complete them can attest to any other discussion on it, but if they're not worth playing, they're not worth playing.
I think your book analogy falls flat because the book is still fully read. What they didn't do is read other books the author recommended to have more context.
I'm halfway through the podcast, only hearing the NES Mini talk so far. Was it recorded before the SNES Mini rumours appeared online? Thought it was odd that the possibility of Nintendo moving production to that wasn't brought up outside of Damiani briefly using a hypothetical NES Mini 2 release.
Holundrian
Unconfirmed Member
How so? There is this weird double standard that repeats itself that seems to arbitrarily decide that the sidequest in Nier:A are to be compared to side material or outside material(ala Silmarillion). They're in the game, they're part of the game, a substantial amount of them either shine a different light on the main story, confirm things regarding to the Taroverse, or make thematic statements.
Nier:A actually has outside material/side material(The Yorha stage play, prior Drakengard/Nier games themselves) that I'd much easier understand for people making the argument "you're expecting too much". But the sidequest are in the game and very much part of it and do relate to the overall story it is telling.
In that I reject very much people equating them to outside material and I'm sticking to my analogy in that it wouldn't be a thorough job to skip them.
So no the book wouldn't be fully read.
A big reason why I take issue with that line of thinking is also why wouldn't that same logic apply to the different main endings?
What is to stop someone to call it quits at ending A of Nier based on them not enjoying the game at all(cause if it's not worth playing it's not worth playing :-x)? Like sure in certain contexts absolutely 100% super valid and a contrasting worthwhile opinion to take if explained in relatable fashion.
But in the context of a Spoiler Mode that doesn't seem enough to me.(<- And yes on this point I recognize I seem to be the minority)
Edit: I apologize if I'm getting annoying. I just feel very strongly about this I hope the reasons for why are somewhat relatable.
Edit2: Reading through it again.
" but I'd rather have more voices to the spoiler cast than less."
Don't take it as me wanting to bar anyone from joining a Spoiler Mode, absolutely not, faaaaaaaaar from it.
Purely hypothetical having more perspectives, even less informed ones is always better in my opinion by intrinsic nature it opens the possibilities to better discussion. So I too would rather have more voices on the cast than less.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll