Support NeoGAF

[RedC]

I don't think you know his points. I don't think his fanbase even knows what he says, it's the toxic "fuck new games" attitude that draws people to him

Honestly, I don't think you know his points.

Because every time the actual argument gets brought up, you dodge back to "his fans are toxic," "he hates new games," "he just talks shit," or "he thinks complicated games are automatically better." That's not his Pragmata argument. That's the easier version you invented so you don't have to answer the real one.

His point is not "simple bad, complex good." His point is that Pragmata's hacking system bends the shooter combat around itself instead of naturally strengthening it. You can disagree with that, but at least argue against that.

If your rebuttal is that his audience is annoying, that's not a rebuttal to the design critique. If your rebuttal is that his tone is smug, that's not a rebuttal either. If your rebuttal is "he hates modern games," that still doesn't explain why his specific point about the hacking/combat integration is wrong.

So no, I don't think you know his points. I think you know the version of his points that makes him easiest to dismiss.

 

[kpopSuperstar]

The fork analogy is cute, but it kind of proves the opposite point.

If someone reviewed a fork and said the handle makes it awkward to hold, the prongs don't pierce food well, and the whole design makes eating clumsy, that would literally be a review of whether the fork is good to eat with. That is not "missing the point." That is the point.

Same thing here. He is not saying Pragmata's systems are bad because he found five fancy words in a game-design thesaurus. He is saying the hacking system affects how the rest of the game functions. The combat has to slow down for it. Enemies have to be less aggressive for it. Bosses need giant recovery windows for it. The puzzles have to stay simple enough to do in real time. The armor system exists so hacking has something to strip away. That is not random nitpicking. That is him asking whether the fork actually works as a fork.

Also, "he talks too much" is not a counterargument. "Jaded gamers think he sounds smart" is not a counterargument. "He's a hater" is not a counterargument. That is just a Yelp review of his personality.

The actual rebuttal would be showing that Pragmata's hacking creates meaningful pressure, that the enemies properly challenge the player's movement, that the bosses have strong overlap and reactivity, and that the RPG systems do not undermine the central mechanic.

Until then, the complaint is basically: "I don't like how he explained why the fork is awkward, therefore forks are above criticism."

I think you're attacking the personality around the argument more than the argument itself.

The "innovative design vs gimmick design" point is not meaningless fluff. It's actually pretty straightforward: a gimmick is when you start with an arbitrary feature and then bend the rest of the game around it. Innovative design is when you look at what the core game already needs and create a mechanic that strengthens that core instead of forcing the game to make compromises for it.

That is exactly his criticism of Pragmata's hacking system. His argument is not simply "simple = bad" or "complex = good." His argument is that the hacking mechanic does not naturally emerge from the shooter combat. The game has to artificially create armor/shields that make your normal damage ineffective so the hacking system has something to "solve." In other words, the armor exists to justify the hacking, and the hacking exists to justify the puzzle layer. That is circular, self-justifying design.

He even gives a concrete example of what a more natural version could look like. He compares it to Resident Evil 5's real-time inventory, where the UI creates pressure because it directly serves the action system: reloading, item use, weapon switching, and timing all happen under combat stress. His point is that Pragmata could have made the hacking interface a reliable, fast, timing-based combat layer, but instead it randomizes/shuffles the puzzle layout and calls that "problem solving," while the external combat remains too static and simplified.

So no, "strengthening the identity of the system" is not David Icke reptile talk. It means the mechanic should deepen the core game's existing tensions instead of weakening other parts of the game to make the mechanic relevant.

And that is why the later sections matter. When he talks about "missing reading and overlap" or "missing complex reactivity," he is not just trying to sound smart. He is talking about specific action-game fundamentals: can enemies pressure the player's movement, can projectiles create layered spatial decisions, can bosses react to player behavior, can weak points create dynamic risk/reward, and can multiple incentives compete at once instead of funneling the player into one obvious solution?

You can disagree with his tone. You can disagree with his taste. But pretending there is no design argument there is weak. The argument is very clear: Pragmata's problem is not that it is simple. The problem is that its systems are not integrated cleanly, so the combat, puzzles, enemy design, movement, RPG progression, and boss structure all have to soften themselves around the central gimmick.

"A gimmick is when you start an arbitrary feature and then bend the rest of the game around it".

You are talking like him. A gimmick is not arbitrary, and it can be wildly innovative.

Everything is "self-justifying design". The UI in Resident Evil "creates pressure because it directly serves the action system", dude, what do you think you are saying here?

You, and him, are trying to explain would could be better with vague reasoning and ignoring what works. "It has to artificially create armor/shields to make normal damage ineffective". What game doesn't do this? every game with damage ever makes "artificial" adjustments to control damage. It's like you are trying to say that the hacking could be more dynamic, but try to be sophisticated and end up making multiple statements that makes no sense.

But he is not asking whether the fork works as a fork, he assumes it does not, because he doesn't like it to begin with. All his arguments come from the place of distaste. What matters with Pragmata is not how stiffling the hacking is, what matters is how satsfying it is, and it's clearly satisfying for most, it's a beloved game. That's what they are trying to do design.

 

[RedC]

"A gimmick is when you start an arbitrary feature and then bend the rest of the game around it".

You are talking like him. A gimmick is not arbitrary, and it can be wildly innovative.

Everything is "self-justifying design". The UI in Resident Evil "creates pressure because it directly serves the action system", dude, what do you think you are saying here?

You, and him, are trying to explain would could be better with vague reasoning and ignoring what works. "It has to artificially create armor/shields to make normal damage ineffective". What game doesn't do this? every game with damage ever makes "artificial" adjustments to control damage. It's like you are trying to say that the hacking could be more dynamic, but try to be sophisticated and end up making multiple statements that makes no sense.

But he is not asking whether the fork works as a fork, he assumes it does not, because he doesn't like it to begin with. All his arguments come from the place of distaste. What matters with Pragmata is not how stiffling the hacking is, what matters is how satsfying it is, and it's clearly satisfying for most, it's a beloved game. That's what they are trying to do design.

See, this is exactly why I said I don't think you know his points.

You're treating "artificial" like he means "fake, therefore bad." That is not the argument. Obviously games are artificial. Health bars are artificial. Damage values are artificial. Armor systems are artificial. Nobody thinks Capcom discovered armor plating growing organically on a vine somewhere.

The point is whether the system creates meaningful interaction or whether it exists mainly to force another system to matter.

There is a difference between "this enemy has armor because the combat is built around target priority, weapon choice, positioning, weak points, and pressure" and "this enemy has armor because otherwise you would ignore the hacking minigame." That distinction is not vague. It is basic system design.

And yes, gimmicks can be innovative. Nobody said otherwise. The issue is not "gimmick = automatically bad." The issue is whether the gimmick strengthens the rest of the game or whether the rest of the game has to walk on eggshells around the gimmick.

That is why the Resident Evil 5 inventory comparison matters. The inventory creates pressure because it is tied directly to action decisions: reload timing, item management, weapon switching, healing, spacing, and risk. It is not a separate little minigame stapled on top of the combat. It is the combat interface creating tension inside the combat.

Pragmata's hacking criticism is different: the game has to slow the enemies down, give bosses long recovery windows, keep the puzzles simple, and make damage conditional so the hacking layer can remain relevant. That is the actual claim. You can disagree with it, but pretending it is just "all games adjust damage" is flattening the argument into mush.

Also, "what matters is whether it is satisfying" is not the mic drop you think it is. Something can be satisfying and still be poorly integrated. Plenty of games have enjoyable mechanics sitting inside messy systems. The question is not "did anyone enjoy it?" The question is "does the mechanic make the game around it better, deeper, more dynamic, or more coherent?"

If your defense is "people like it, therefore the design critique is invalid," then congratulations, you have discovered popularity, not analysis.

 

[kpopSuperstar]

See, this is exactly why I said I don't think you know his points.

You're treating "artificial" like he means "fake, therefore bad." That is not the argument. Obviously games are artificial. Health bars are artificial. Damage values are artificial. Armor systems are artificial. Nobody thinks Capcom discovered armor plating growing organically on a vine somewhere.

The point is whether the system creates meaningful interaction or whether it exists mainly to force another system to matter.

There is a difference between "this enemy has armor because the combat is built around target priority, weapon choice, positioning, weak points, and pressure" and "this enemy has armor because otherwise you would ignore the hacking minigame." That distinction is not vague. It is basic system design.

And yes, gimmicks can be innovative. Nobody said otherwise. The issue is not "gimmick = automatically bad." The issue is whether the gimmick strengthens the rest of the game or whether the rest of the game has to walk on eggshells around the gimmick.

That is why the Resident Evil 5 inventory comparison matters. The inventory creates pressure because it is tied directly to action decisions: reload timing, item management, weapon switching, healing, spacing, and risk. It is not a separate little minigame stapled on top of the combat. It is the combat interface creating tension inside the combat.

Pragmata's hacking criticism is different: the game has to slow the enemies down, give bosses long recovery windows, keep the puzzles simple, and make damage conditional so the hacking layer can remain relevant. That is the actual claim. You can disagree with it, but pretending it is just "all games adjust damage" is flattening the argument into mush.

Also, "what matters is whether it is satisfying" is not the mic drop you think it is. Something can be satisfying and still be poorly integrated. Plenty of games have enjoyable mechanics sitting inside messy systems. The question is not "did anyone enjoy it?" The question is "does the mechanic make the game around it better, deeper, more dynamic, or more coherent?"

If your defense is "people like it, therefore the design critique is invalid," then congratulations, you have discovered popularity, not analysis.

I am not saying artificial is bad, I am saying it's a word you use because you think it sounds good. The sentence "they artificially make shields to make normal damage ineffective" is the same as "they got shields". It's just an uppity way of saying it.

He clearly mocks gimmicks in his videos.

All systems force other systems to matter.

There is a distinction to how combat systems work versus basic descriptions, but the feel of the systems is more important than the details, and he will find things he hates and wildly blow it out of proportion into an incoherent point.

It's not a "it's popular so it's good argument", it's an observation that this guy dislikes so many games, and overdramatizes it's flaws to skyhigh absurdities that his tastes become irrelevant. Like Icke and his reptiles.

Because this is all about taste. His "combat design critique" is him talking about his taste. Whether or not the target priority and positioning works comes down to how you experience it, and when you have a guy like him, who experiences things like everything is wrong, you have to start questioning their viewpoint.

I remember watching his Stellar Blade video and thought, wow, this is the dumbest thing I have seen in a while. And then he makes a video praising Final Fight. It's clear he is a retrohead who don't play much new stuff.

 

[RedC]

I am not saying artificial is bad, I am saying it's a word you use because you think it sounds good. The sentence "they artificially make shields to make normal damage ineffective" is the same as "they got shields". It's just an uppity way of saying it.

He clearly mocks gimmicks in his videos.

All systems force other systems to matter.

There is a distinction to how combat systems work versus basic descriptions, but the feel of the systems is more important than the details, and he will find things he hates and wildly blow it out of proportion into an incoherent point.

It's not a "it's popular so it's good argument", it's an observation that this guy dislikes so many games, and overdramatizes it's flaws to skyhigh absurdities that his tastes become irrelevant. Like Icke and his reptiles.

Because this is all about taste. His "combat design critique" is him talking about his taste. Whether or not the target priority and positioning works comes down to how you experience it, and when you have a guy like him, who experiences things like everything is wrong, you have to start questioning their viewpoint.

I remember watching his Stellar Blade video and thought, wow, this is the dumbest thing I have seen in a while. And then he makes a video praising Final Fight. It's clear he is a retrohead who don't play much new stuff.

No, "they artificially make shields to make normal damage ineffective" is not just an uppity way of saying "they got shields."

"They got shields" is a basic description. The criticism is about function. Why are the shields there? What behavior do they create? What choices do they force? Do they make combat more interesting, or are they just a lock that says "please engage with the hacking system now"?

That is not fancy wording. That is the difference between describing a mechanic and analyzing a mechanic.

"All systems force other systems to matter" is also way too broad to be useful. Sure, in the most generic sense, systems interact. Congratulations, we have discovered video games. The actual question is whether those interactions create pressure, tradeoffs, ambiguity, risk/reward, and player expression, or whether they just funnel the player into a prescribed required step.

That is the distinction being made.

A shield system can be good. A gimmick can be good. A mechanic being "artificial" is not automatically bad. The problem is when the rest of the game has to soften itself around that mechanic so the mechanic can survive. If enemies have to become less aggressive, boss attacks need giant recovery windows, puzzles need to stay low-pressure, and damage has to be conditionally neutered just to make hacking relevant, then yes, that is worth criticizing.

And "feel matters more than details" sounds nice until you remember that feel comes from details. Enemy speed, hit stun, cancel windows, spacing, boss recovery, animation commitment, resource pressure, encounter density, movement options, and failure states are all the things that create feel. You don't get to wave away the details while appealing to the feel, because the details are the machinery producing the feel.

This is also why the "he praised Final Fight, so he's just a retrohead" argument does not work. His Final Fight praise is not "old game good." He praises it because its limited mechanics are supported by enemy behavior, spacing, character archetypes, level design, resource pressure, rank, and systematic difficulty. The enemies flank, block, jump out of infinites, protect each other, force priority decisions, and punish bad positioning. That is a design argument.

And his Stellar Blade criticism is not "new game bad." He criticizes Stellar Blade because he thinks the mechanics are isolated and prescribed: weak hit stun, overcommitted strings, color-coded responses, passive enemies, avoidable encounters, static bosses, weak long-term risk/reward, and a lot of filler engagement around the actual combat. Again, you can disagree, but that is not just "I hate new games." That is a combat critique.

So the through-line is obvious: he likes games where the enemies, levels, and systems push back against the player. He dislikes games where mechanics exist on paper but the surrounding design does not meaningfully pressure them.

You can call that taste if you want, but taste does not magically erase analysis. If someone says "the enemy design does not pressure the player's movement," that is not the same as saying "I personally dislike the vibes." If someone says "the boss patterns are too static," that is not just taste. If someone says "the intended answer is also the safest answer, so the risk/reward collapses," that is an argument.

The funny part is you keep accusing people of being impressed by words, but you're the one dodging the actual meaning of the words. "Artificial," "gimmick," "pressure," "overlap," "positioning," "risk/reward", these are not magic spells. They're describing how the game functions.

At this point, your rebuttal is basically: "I don't like his tone, I don't like his audience, I don't like how harsh he is, and he praised an old game once, so his critique is invalid."

That's not a counterargument. That's just reviewing the reviewer because answering the point is harder.

 

[mèx]

Watched the video, glad to see I was not on the crazy pills. Very few people in the OT complained about the enemies, apparently as long as the game plays smoothly everything goes nowadays, having any meaningful challenge be damned. The enemy design and composition is really bad, you feel no pressure at all 95% of the times. There are only a handful of arenas where you are like "shit, this game is lit".

The video also explains really well why I felt the game is such a cakewalk. I didn't think about that a lot but most of the points exposed there make sense to me.

The game needs some massive tightening up to be up there with the best action games. The potential is there, I hope they follow it up with a sequel, this game has incredible potential if executed right.