• As part of the relaunch of Skullheart, ALL previous threads have been archived. You can find them at the bottom of the forum in the Archives (2021) section. The archives are locked, so please use the new forum sections to create new discussion threads.

Unpopular gaming opinions

Verstande said:
Is Skullgirls' art considered fanservice?

I personally don't like it but I got over it because of how solid the game is.

Kind of.
In most cases the clothing is justified (Ms. Fortune needs it to fight properly, Filia hasn't been able to change since Samson attached itself to her and has recently put on weight, Cerebella's entire job requires her to be able to draw attention to herself, Valentine is… Valentine) but it's still kind of annoying, there are a lot of small changes that could be taken to the character design that would make it a little less, I dunno, pervy?

But like you said, everyone eventually gets over it.
 
It certainly soured my first impression of the game. But then I played it and it felt really smooth...and solid at the same time. I just liked how the game played overall, so I just got over it.
 
It's pretty fanservice-y. You can explain some of it away, but Parasoul is represented as quite dignified (except the whole Annie thing) in the game but her animations don't really reflect that.
 
Tomo009 said:
It's pretty fanservice-y. You can explain some of it away, but Parasoul is represented as quite dignified (except the whole Annie thing) in the game but her animations don't really reflect that.

Not sure I can agree. Her skirt may be short, but most of her fencing inspired moves and poses reflect her personality and status well IMO.
 
I still maintain that Parasoul's lack of pants/a longer skirt is kinda sorta justified, considering how high she kicks and a skirt would definitely get in the way, pants would probably interfere.
THAT'S MY STORY AND I'M STICKING WITH IT.
 
Squire Grooktook said:
Oh ok, yeah that's reasonable. Otherwise it's pretty much just porn.

Admittedly, if a character dresses sexy it's pretty much implied that they like doing it. Only other explanation is that they're being forced to...which is just gross and definitely one of the things I really do find disgusting. Anything non-consensual = disgusting and anyone fapping should feel bad.



Well, for example, there is no place fanservice would fit in Lord of The Rings. It's a quite, dignified, methodical work and any kind of fanservice would likely conflict with that atmosphere.

Not saying sexuality can't be dignified, but it's neither the time nor the place in this case.

1. You say people should feel bad about stuff being non-consensual. It's called fantasy. People don't choose their tastes. I'm a sadist, I didn't choose that. I know not go out and assault people. Hell, that fetish literally just came up. Don't like going into details but that point has to be made.

2. Lord of the Rings had an author that wouldn't put that in there. Now please, I may be wrong, but I remember hearing Tolkien was moderately religious and there is religious symbolism. When we also look at modern fanservice it usually is visual (not all the time, but originates there), so Lord of the Rings being a novel is also a factor. Just making a point on that example that in comic/manga/anime/video game type thing you can almost always have fanservice in there SOMEWHERE and at best doesn't take away from the story. Cases where it feels truly forced and doesn't belong is very rare.

3. I was attracted to Skullgirls because of the sexy art, first thing that caught my eye. Hell, may not be playing Skullgirls if the art wasn't what it was, fanservicey and unapolgetic. Obviously having my dream type gameplay for a FG is big too but my point stands. I think Project X Zone was a BETTER game cause of the fanservice. For PXZ it wasn't really expected and made an already funny game even funnier and of course sexy is well, sexy. I don't even have a problem with fanservice being a main draw to a game, as long as the gameplay is tight whatever. To me fanservice done right is almost always a plus.


Fanservice, you can almost always make it work someway. At least for me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BZ Choy
scrubbyscum999 said:
1. You say people should feel bad about stuff being non-consensual. It's called fantasy. People don't choose their tastes. I'm a sadist, I didn't choose that. I know not go out and assault people. Hell, that fetish literally just came up. Don't like going into details but that point has to be made.

I understand, but I feel that fantasy doesn't make a difference. I used to be attracted to certain...things...but as I matured I came to the realization that they were immoral and the fact that it was a fantasy that I didn't technically "want" to take place didn't make it any less immoral in my eyes. So I stopped fantasizing about those things.

I understand some people are born with urges that are very powerful and almost uncontrollable, and not knowing what that's like myself I will not pass judgement. However, myself I have a normal sex drive that is not some insurmountably powerful force, and so I can refrain from fantasizing about things I find wrong and even modify my own preferences so that I no longer find them attractive (now I see something like that, and it's just disgusting to me and not sexy in the slightest). Therefore I will at least hold myself to my own values.

Anyway please don't take offense. I might say "people who say vulgar slurs in front of children are horrible"...obviously it doesn't apply to people who have tourettes syndrome or whatever.

scrubbyscum999 said:
2. Lord of the Rings had an author that wouldn't put that in there. Now please, I may be wrong, but I remember hearing Tolkien was moderately religious and there is religious symbolism. When we also look at modern fanservice it usually is visual (not all the time, but originates there), so Lord of the Rings being a novel is also a factor. Just making a point on that example that in comic/manga/anime/video game type thing you can almost always have fanservice in there SOMEWHERE and at best doesn't take away from the story. Cases where it feels truly forced and doesn't belong is very rare.

Lord of The Rings was also made into a movie, and there is sexuality and sex scenes in classical literature, but that being said if you were going to do a visual spin off or some such things of the LOTR universe, any kind of "fan service" would feel very jarring. As for the religious symbolism, Tolkien said many times that he had a distaste for allegory and tried to focus purely on story telling that could appeal to everyone.

Anyway, my main point is that it wouldn't really fit due to the atmosphere and style.
 
Last edited:
Squire Grooktook said:
I understand, but I feel that fantasy doesn't make a difference. I used to be attracted to certain...things...but as I matured I came to the realization that they were immoral and the fact that it was a fantasy that I didn't technically "want" to take place didn't make it any less immoral in my eyes. So I stopped fantasizing about those things.

I understand some people are born with urges that are very powerful and almost uncontrollable, and not knowing what that's like myself I will not pass judgement. However, myself I have a normal sex drive that is not some insurmountably powerful force, and so I can refrain from fantasizing about things I find wrong and even modify my own preferences so that I no longer find them attractive (now I see something like that, and it's just disgusting to me and not sexy in the slightest). Therefore I will at least hold myself to my own values.



Lord of The Rings was also made into a movie, and there is sexuality and sex scenes in classical literature, but that being said if you were going to do a visual spin off or some such things of the LOTR universe, any kind of "fan service" would feel very jarring. As for the religious symbolism, Tolkien said many times that he had a distaste for allegory and tried to focus purely on story telling that could appeal to everyone.

Anyway, my main point is that it wouldn't really fit due to the atmosphere and style.

That's a fine line your walking with those opinions on fantasy. That can be applied to literally anything. Any sort of violence in fiction. I mean, I always felt sex fantasy/roleplay was one of those ultimate areas of human life where almost anything can go. It's fantasy. Art can depict all sorts of horrendous and bad things and get away with pretty much all of it. Art is great in part because it can work outside accepted morality. Depiction of an evil act or the attraction to a good villian, that's art, and I feel a lot of sexual feelings are no different. I feel no reason on why crazy fantasies, sexual or otherwise, are bad as long as you got some self control. I have been attracted to things that in ordinary life would be pure evil, but imagine it knowing I would never do that. Its like having thoughtcrime or something if you say that is still immoral. How do we decide to depict evil acts at that point, especially in art. Hey, your life though so whatever you feel is best for you.

I'm not going to pretend I know anything about Lord of Rings, but all I am saying is that the author affects the work too. I still feel the author intentionally made the story like that because thats what he wanted, thus it being his story and a very established one of course it seems normal to have no fanservice in that instance. I am not saying you can't find an example, I'm saying in the era we are right now its very rare. It can fit if you want the person wants it to. If they don't then it won't.

So tying this back to video games I feel this is important considering recent events. Fanservice has shown its going to stay and it will be prominent, at least right now. I feel recent controversies over fanservice ultimately can come down to personal tastes due to upbringing or just your own formulated opinion. I just find it hard to make moral arguments on something so, unsurprising and harmless. Sex or sex appeal is going to pop in games and will be a major feature in some games. You may not think about it, but you can't tell me the sexuality in Skullgirls is not a pretty big part of its identity. It's not the center necessarily, but its in your face. I think when you try to make moral arguments in this area it ultimately doesn't hold up cause ultimately it either is based off personal preference or its so easily countered with the question of what substantive harm is it doing. I could write another paragraph on that last sentence but I'll just stop here.
 
scrubbyscum999 said:
That's a fine line your walking with those opinions on fantasy. That can be applied to literally anything. Any sort of violence in fiction. I mean, I always felt sex fantasy/roleplay was one of those ultimate areas of human life where almost anything can go. It's fantasy. Art can depict all sorts of horrendous and bad things and get away with pretty much all of it. Art is great in part because it can work outside accepted morality. Depiction of an evil act or the attraction to a good villian, that's art, and I feel a lot of sexual feelings are no different. I feel no reason on why crazy fantasies, sexual or otherwise, are bad as long as you got some self control. I have been attracted to things that in ordinary life would be pure evil, but imagine it knowing I would never do that. Its like having thoughtcrime or something if you say that is still immoral. How do we decide to depict evil acts at that point, especially in art. Hey, your life though so whatever you feel is best for you.

I understand, and while I can respect that opinion, I still feel that there is a difference between story telling and drawing sexual satisfaction from something real or imagined. I don't know, maybe it's the way one approaches a story where one just "accepts" what's happening the way they would life, and a fantasy which is more "what I want to happen". Or maybe it's just a matter of empathy, that I just cannot allow myself to ignore someone elses humiliation or displeasure for my own gain...I don't know, but I personally can't abide by it, and I don't think anyone who has the ability to control themselves should.

Again though, I make no personal judgments on you or anyone else here. Anyway let's drop this topic because I could see this getting touchy if other people pick it up.

scrubbyscum999 said:
I'm not going to pretend I know anything about Lord of Rings, but all I am saying is that the author affects the work too. I still feel the author intentionally made the story like that because thats what he wanted, thus it being his story and a very established one of course it seems normal to have no fanservice in that instance. I am not saying you can't find an example, I'm saying in the era we are right now its very rare. It can fit if you want the person wants it to. If they don't then it won't.

Well again what I'm arguing is that it's not just the authors desire, but also just the atmosphere itself. Regardless of author intent, I find it has a very quite, solemn atmosphere, and bouncing breasts , a random sex scene, or any other kind of true fantasy indulgence would harm that sense to it.


Anyway, as for fanservice in general, I don't think there's anything wrong with it. EXCEPT, the best argument I've heard is like ExtraCreditz said: that an overabundance of it is probably a factor in making gaming seem like a "boys club" thing that may make female players feel like they aren't the intended audience. I don't think any artist should stop drawing what he enjoys drawing because of PR, however it is something to keep in mind.
 
Squire Grooktook said:
Well again what I'm arguing is that it's not just the authors desire, but also just the atmosphere itself. Regardless of author intent, I find it has a very quite, solemn atmosphere, and bouncing breasts , a random sex scene, or any other kind of true fantasy indulgence would harm that sense to it.


Anyway, as for fanservice in general, I don't think there's anything wrong with it. EXCEPT, the best argument I've heard is like ExtraCreditz said: that an overabundance of it is probably a factor in making gaming seem like a "boys club" thing that may make female players feel like they aren't the intended audience. I don't think any artist should stop drawing what he enjoys drawing because of PR, however it is something to keep in mind.

Solemn atmosphere is ultimately created by the author. The author is master and he or she defines everything. Fanservice can also come in various forms and can be implemented in a way where it can be background like.

I think the Boys club thing is not that important. If there is a market for something some creative person will fill it. That and the majority of gamers being boys, well I don't really see a problem with that. Tons of stuff may be majority one sex but someone of the opposite sex still can jump in. Not everything will appeal to both genders for whatever reasons. Video games have been majority male even in the very early days.

Totally off topic but as you can tell I like to debate.
 
scrubbyscum999 said:
Solemn atmosphere is ultimately created by the author. The author is master and he or she defines everything. Fanservice can also come in various forms and can be implemented in a way where it can be background like.

That's what I'm saying. Fanservice can work, but in this particular case I feel it conflicts with the tone and atmosphere.

scrubbyscum999 said:
I think the Boys club thing is not that important. If there is a market for something some creative person will fill it. That and the majority of gamers being boys, well I don't really see a problem with that. Tons of stuff may be majority one sex but someone of the opposite sex still can jump in. Not everything will appeal to both genders for whatever reasons. Video games have been majority male even in the very early days.

Totally off topic but as you can tell I like to debate.

I agree partially, but the argument Extra Creditz was making is that an overabundance of that kind of imagery could potentially limit the appeal and wide spread perception of the medium, which in turn could make it more difficult for newcomers to find their way into it.

Like I said, I don't think it's a big problem, and I don't think artists need to have PR people standing behind their back reminding them to keep it kosher, but I think it's something to keep in mind.

Myself, if I were an artist I would not indulge in that kind of sex appeal, but only because it would likely work against the kind of tone and atmosphere I would be trying to create, not because I have a personal problem with it.
 
scrubbyscum999 said:
That's a fine line\

I agree with your post. I think if someone shows temperance and keeps a fantasy essentially a fantasy, then I don't care and I don't mind.
 
Ghouls and Ghosts >>>> Mega Man, and is Capcom's best side scrolling franchise imo.

GNG level design is tight and creative, the game has a unique feel that's incredibly satisfying and rewarding (usually games with such tight jump controls feel more methodical and pattern memorization based, but GNG feels incredibly fast paced and reflex focused where jumping is more like an emergency dodge than anything), it has excellent usage of randomness to force you to react and improvise on the fly, the "afterlife-y" aeshtetic is awesome, the music is great, and all the games share an arcade style intensity that's missing from the more consolized Mega Man games.

Most Mega Man games feel like an adventure the first time through, but afterwards feel rather dull and bland on repeat playthroughs IMO (though admittedly, this is less/not true for some of the better designed and memorable series installments). GNG on the other hand is always what it was designed to be: An intense, exciting, arcade style action game with a focus on reflexes and near competitive level finesse under pressure.

And yes, there is a jump in the second game where you have like a 1/10 chance of dying purely from luck due to a random enemy spawn, they should have playtested that better. But it doesn't matter because the game is still brilliant anyway.
 
Squire Grooktook said:
Ghouls and Ghosts >>>> Mega Man, and is Capcom's best side scrolling franchise imo.

Hell yes! I agree that GnG deserves way more love and attention than it gets! A lot of what I like about the series is also present in Demon's/Dark Souls: difficult, fair(usually), cool bosses, highly replayable, lots of secrets, etc.

That being said, I love Mega Man too. I can't choose between my children as easily as you can though :P
 
Hell, I'd just say capcom hasn't made an intentionally good game in 20 years. Dumb luck and fan loyalty is the only thing that's kept the company afloat. If they would have ended the Resident Evil series at 4, I'd have thought they would've had one more well thought out game in the last 20 years, but after the other RE games, I'm more convinced then ever that Capcom exists solely because of a series of accidents. The entire company is like a blindfolded man in a diamond mine. Everyone once in a while, he comes out with a gem. Most of the time he gets a pickaxe in the foot.
 
alexpi said:
Hell, I'd just say capcom hasn't made an intentionally good game in 20 years. Dumb luck and fan loyalty is the only thing that's kept the company afloat. If they would have ended the Resident Evil series at 4, I'd have thought they would've had one more well thought out game in the last 20 years, but after the other RE games, I'm more convinced then ever that Capcom exists solely because of a series of accidents. The entire company is like a blindfolded man in a diamond mine. Everyone once in a while, he comes out with a gem. Most of the time he gets a pickaxe in the foot.

Honestly, I don't know about 20 years, but damn this might have some serious truth to it even before last gen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: juju_for_president
I think capcom should just abandon its old liscences like megaman and stick to stuff like street fighter, monster hunter, and dragon's dogma.

the only character action game I seem to like is Bayo.
 
I think Capcom definitely has made some good games within the past 20 years, hell even within the past 10 years. Things really didn't start falling apart till old staff members started leaving imo.
 
I believe there are very few games that should have more than two sequels. It's also dangerous to make more than two sequels because then your fans continue to expect more and more of the same thing and they never really stop.
For similar reasons, I believe that gaming's greatest weakness as a medium is the ease with which you can reuse assets.
Also it took a lot of effort not to say anything on the last page. Some of the stuff people said bugged the shit out of me but we've had a long feminism debate like 3 times in the past month or two and it would have been boring as fuck. You should all thank me for my inaction.
Also, kind of off topic, but scrubbyscum you talk about your fetishes so casually that I can't tell if it's awkward or brave.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Error Macro
I dont want capcom to go under because we have no guarantee any GOOD companies will obtain their licences.
 
Sanoblaze said:
I dont want capcom to go under because we have no guarantee any GOOD companies will obtain their licences.
That is a good point. As much as we like the idea of all of Capcom's IPs being scattered into their best respective hands, odds are that it wouldn't be a reality. At least half of our precious IPs would end up in even worse hands.

I can already imagine the headline: "EA obtains Megaman license"
 
Horseman said:
I believe there are very few games that should have more than two sequels. It's also dangerous to make more than two sequels because then your fans continue to expect more and more of the same thing and they never really stop.
For similar reasons, I believe that gaming's greatest weakness as a medium is the ease with which you can reuse assets.
Also it took a lot of effort not to say anything on the last page. Some of the stuff people said bugged the shit out of me but we've had a long feminism debate like 3 times in the past month or two and it would have been boring as fuck. You should all thank me for my inaction.
Also, kind of off topic, but scrubbyscum you talk about your fetishes so casually that I can't tell if it's awkward or brave.

I believe in sequels/series. If something is good keep doing it, as long as you change it up enough and progress it over time. I think video games are just in a way where we like to build upon something to make it better. Plus, sequels and/or series allows us to have a stronger connection to the world that was created.

I do get tired of saying the same stuff all the times in this feminism debate, but if I don't speak up who will? I have no problems with speaking up against something I believe is wrong or something I believe is right.

As for the fetish thing, we are on the internet. I don't care. If you see me in real life, so? If you know about my fetishes, well what are going to do about it? That's how I feel.
 
I'm not sure if I'd want Squeenix to get control of Breath of Fire, but other than that, I really don't care what happens to Capcom. The "Capcom" projects I've enjoyed in recent years were mostly the work of an outsourced developer anyway. They should have just given the Megaman license to Inti Creates a long time ago.
 
Horseman said:
I believe there are very few games that should have more than two sequels. It's also dangerous to make more than two sequels because then your fans continue to expect more and more of the same thing and they never really stop.

It depends on what kind of game imo. Some games are fine to just be remixed with new stages and content.

One thing I loath is when reviewers would be all like "This new Mega Man is great! The level design is creative and tight, the bosses are well designed, the pacing is fantastic, and it's all around a blast to play!......buuuuuut it doesn't play significantly different from the last Mega Man game. 5/10"
 
  • Like
Reactions: Error Macro and scrubbyscum999
Sanoblaze said:
I dont want capcom to go under because we have no guarantee any GOOD companies will obtain their licences.
^This.^
It's not like there's a whole bunch of developers who would make the best use of Capcom's licenses. Only one that springs to mind is Platinum Games given it's mostly comprised of ex-Capcom staff but as much as I love'em they don't have the resources or tech power to give said licenses proper justice and besides, they're better off doing their own thing, as are other devs.

As for Capcom, they still have good games and the key word here is THEY, in-house development. Like 90% of the crappy games we see with Capcom's logo stamped on it are outsourced projects because Capcom has this horrible habit of cherry-picking developers with the absolute worst track records, simply because they'll work for peanuts.
Sadly, Capcom has dropped a lot of IPs in their quest to rake the dudebro paper and are starting to become known to the West as the company that only makes SF and RE and publishes poor attempts at "winning over the Western market". In Japan, Monster Hunter and Sengoku Basara are considered "reliable sources of earnings".

Yes, Capcom is not what it used be but the same could be said about a lot of the "oldschool developers".
 
its not about capcom, its about who would obtain the liscences that I worry about. like JuJuPrez said, EA could outbuy everyone for megaman and we as the consumers would have no say whatsoever.

Also, I think the Jak series is a perfect example of what to do with a sequel.
 
I think we all just need to accept that some of our beloved series are dead and buried(Mega Man), or at the very least on a long vacation(F-Zero, Metroid)

and no matter who gets Mega Man, chances are it's not gonna be pretty, most likely
 
I will never believe F-Zero is truly dead.
Never doubt Capt. Falcon. Never.


Also, I think I am one of the few people who would be okay with classic megaman staying dead, yet the X series still going on.
 
Sanoblaze said:
Never doubt Capt. Falcon. Never.
I'll doubt Captain Falcon. I never see that guy win any races unless I'm playing as him. Octoman's the real champ!

Unpopular opinion:
-I think F-Zero characters are more interesting than Zelda characters
 
  • Like
Reactions: Smilax and Error Macro
I say virtua fighter has better characters with better storylines that they never show in game because they focus on the most important part, the gameplay.

also mortal kombat's story sucked. and injustice wasnt that great considering it was like, negative earth all over again
 
stop. there was worse than Mahvel. there will always be the worse fighters than Mahvel.
 
Squire Grooktook said:
It depends on what kind of game imo. Some games are fine to just be remixed with new stages and content.

One thing I loath is when reviewers would be all like "This new Mega Man is great! The level design is creative and tight, the bosses are well designed, the pacing is fantastic, and it's all around a blast to play!......buuuuuut it doesn't play significantly different from the last Mega Man game. 5/10"
Like I said there are very few series that should be series, but that doesn't mean that some games can't be. Megaman is one of the worst example of a series and one of the best examples at the same time. It's worthy as a series because for a while it managed to change it up by evolving from classic to x to legends, and so on and so forth- they weren't going the easy route and making the same game over and over, they were willing to change. On the other hand, it's pretty plain to see that the classic series overextended; imo the only games that should have existed were 1-3, 9, and maybe 4/7.
And it is a pretty valid critique to say that a game that doesn't change enough in a sequel. Many games technically only get better with age, but fatigue is very real and it makes the games boring as hell. If you're never going to change there's little to no point in a sequel, at least release expansion dlc rather than making everyone pay full price for a new game. That's what killed guitar hero. It was happening to mario for a while with all the new super mario bros crap. It's what will eventually killed call of duty, battlefield, assassin's creed, castlevania, etc. if they don't get their asses in gear and try changing something up for once. Although even then the vast majority of them aren't structured well to sustain a series like that.
Edit: Off topic, but I just want to point out that the "terrible" review score you presented was technically par. Kind of goes to show how shit gaming journalism is.

Sanoblaze said:
I say virtua fighter has better characters with better storylines that they never show in game because they focus on the most important part, the gameplay.

also mortal kombat's story sucked. and injustice wasnt that great considering it was like, negative earth all over again
I think the big problem is that it's hard as fuck to tell a story in a fighting game. It's perfectly fine for characterization, but it's near impossible to do any decent storytelling in one if you're content with the usual old half-assed "fight these random bots" story mode.
Personally, I think that if you have the time/budget, a story mode that plays like a beat em' up would be a fantastic thing for a fighting game to implement.
 
Last edited:
Horseman said:
Like I said there are very few series that should be series, but that doesn't mean that some games can't be. Megaman is one of the worst example of a series and one of the best examples at the same time. It's worthy as a series because for a while it managed to change it up by evolving from classic to x to legends, and so on and so forth- they weren't going the easy route and making the same game over and over, they were willing to change. On the other hand, it's pretty plain to see that the classic series overextended; imo the only games that should have existed were 1-3, 9, and maybe 4/7.
And it is a pretty valid critique to say that a game that doesn't change enough in a sequel. Many games technically only get better with age, but fatigue is very real and it makes the games boring as hell. If you're never going to change there's little to no point in a sequel, at least release expansion dlc rather than making everyone pay full price for a new game.


I honestly disagree. Ghouls and Ghosts should have had 30 sequels in my eyes. Don't care if it didn't change, just give me remixed stages, weapons, etc. and I'll be happy. Give me Gradius 23, Touhou 987, and Contra 20. Innovate if you want, but honestly just give me some new well designed gameplay and stages and You've sold me.

Personally, I've never felt that "fatigue". When I pick up or buy a game, I know what I'm looking for, and if the game provides it I'm happy.

I don't really care about innovation. If I want a grappling hook, give me a grappling hook. If I want combos, give me combos. But what I DON'T want, is something "new" just for the sake of being new. Give me a new mechanic because it's GOOD, not because you need to shoe horn in "innovation" in order to sell me a game that I already want. And what I want right now is fucking Contra 5 and Gradius 6.

The original Mega Man series is a bad example in my eyes because....well they are extremely over-rated. I honestly simply find that the games lack the kind of true intensity, replayability, and depth of a true arcade style action platformer. The X series though improved things imo with a VERY fun movement scheme that made the series uniquely engrossing to me, but I still feel that at the end of the day many of the games suffer from the lack of aforementioned replayability and depth.

Horseman said:
It's what will eventually killed...castlevania

No. What killed Castlevania was God of Whip Chain. They should have continued both the Metroidvania's AND the oldschool arcade entries. I wasn't bored of either, would have bought another 30 or so entries.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Agent York, DawnHibiki, Error Macro and 2 others
Horseman said:
Also it took a lot of effort not to say anything on the last page. Some of the stuff people said bugged the shit out of me but we've had a long feminism debate like 3 times in the past month or two and it would have been boring as fuck. You should all thank me for my inaction.
Believe me, the urge to speak during those debates was strong as hell for me also. But I just had to say the things I said in the other thread. Now I may be wrong, but I don't care. I'll still stand by my opinion.
 
Vladislav_Paizis said:
I love Skullgirls, but I think it's a terrible name. With a name like that many non-fans will assume that it refers to the playable cast (Not the final boss Marie and the women who got turned into Skullgirls before her) and then complain about the inclusion of Big Band and Beowulf and also make some lame "schoolgirl puns" (Add umlauts to the name like this "Sküllgirls" and it sounds like schoolgirls). I think they should have used something like "Legend of the Skullheart" or some other title.
it is, indeed, plenty room for misunderstanding. I'm pretty sure that everybody here believed at first that "Skullgirls" meant about the playable cast.
At first, when seeing Filia and Cerebella, I believed that everybody in the playable cast would have a monster inside her (i thought Vice-Versa wasn't a hat) and that would define them as "skullgirls".

I think as well that if they do a Skullgirls 2, it's name should refer to "Skullheart".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back