Why do you dislike SuperBunnyhop?
I put off answering this one, because I knew I’d have to rewatch his videos to really recall all my reasons, and I finally worked up the nerve to do it.
First, his position on the journalistic integrity thing was dumb, especially when he got his journalism professor to interview on the matter and basically blew him the fuck out. Also he was on the game journo pro list, which is kind of scummy in of itself.
I’ll be honest, his coverage of stories can be pretty good, like his look at MGS2, MGS3, The Witcher, and Bloodborne versus HP Lovecraft. I liked his MGS3 review overall and I felt like it tapped into a little of how the game worked with its vertical slice thing, and how there were so many different possible tactics you could take.
Watching the witcher sum up, he even gets into the combat a bit in a way that’s appreciable, even if I personally hate the witcher’s combat, even witcher 3’s. I gotta give him credit for that.
Minus massive props for playing a doom source port that allows looking up AND jumping. Also for admitting to quicksaving as a form of savescumming. In the process he does however mention how fucked up hitscan weapons, cones of fire, regenerating health, and iron sights are.
I mean shit, I can’t call the guy horrible. Though I can say his dark souls review isn’t very good. The high difficulty of early games was influenced by their arcade origins, not technical limitations, and contra is like half an hour to an hour long if played from beginning to end. They could afford to be hard, and they were very fair about the ways they were hard. Super Mario Bros restarted you at the beginning of the world if you got a game over, ninja gaiden did too, also shatterhand, and castlevania, and a lot of games on the system had actual save game functions, mostly RPGs, but also Metroid, Megaman, and Zelda. You’re not SUPPOSED to use save states for those NES games, hell, you’re devaluing games like Doom and a lot of other PC shooters for using save states. This is why I insist on sticking with auto-saves or only saving on level transitions. The first half of the review is all about the theme that I don’t really care about. The coverage of the combat is a sales pitch and more shallow than I’d really like. A lot of the talk on the level system is filler.
His coverage of Castlevania Symphony of the night triggers a kneejerk reaction from me up front for him remarking on how the original castlevania games were nothing special or rather humdrum, when they prioritized extreme focus on attacking at the right times in grueling level designs with enemies placed to make it very difficult to move forward or skip any of them. Points to him for backdashing, minus points for not shield-dashing. He does point out how shitty the level design is though, which is something I was expecting him to miss. Overall his impression does seem to be about the same as mine.
In his Zelda videos, he touches on how Link to the Past was more about dodging things and had less tutorials, but doesn’t really go into how lackluster OoT puzzle and enemy design was. And he complains about dumb shit like the room scrolling not fitting his conception of the space or something. He catches himself trying to quantify things, when he’s quantifying the wrong things and when I personally think greater quantification or more precise quantification is what we need in games analysis. Not to mention that Adventure of Link was a greater commercial success than many games that came to follow, sitting right about at the average for sales of the series and being a critical success in its own time.
Also it really pains me how he harshes on himself, used to read the headlines of each section with a really bored voice and acts like this self-conscious jaded fuck sometimes. Like he knows that he’s silly, but has to play it off ironically and begrudgingly to sooth his conscience.
Going to his Megaman Legends review is probably a good palate cleanser, because I haven’t played the game before, and I find it’s a good way to check whether a reviewer can actually describe and break down a game by going to a game I don’t have experience with. He complains about the tank style camera controls, but doesn’t mention how the concept of dual analog literally hadn’t been invented yet. I’ve gotten worse senses of how a game is supposed to be played than this. He does run down some of what the enemy design is like with video examples, and how the tank style controls work with forward and backward (and apparently strafe) movement work with shooting, and the free aim feature that locks you to the ground. I’ve seen worse even if I’d prefer more detail personally. I also feel like he missed out by not covering megaman legends 2 or the failed MML3, with the failed facebook campaign, which is practically what put Keiji Inafune in his current position.
I want to say I dislike his videos, because I don’t want to subscribe to him and I’m used to saying it about people at this point and I suppose it’s kind of expected of me, but he’s honestly not totally shit, and surprises me with alright descriptions of gameplay most of the time. His breakdowns of things tend to feature more correct information than incorrect information, and include genuine insights that aren’t common knowledge or repeating what everyone repeats. He gets the seeds of topics that would be interesting to talk about. He’s not Extra Credits, he’s clearly way above their level and the majority of the other amateur reviewers out there. Maybe what he lacks most is vision and knowledge of specifics? Vision isn’t something you can really fault a guy for. It’s hard to elevate the format. Knowledge of specifics and intricacies, I dunno, that’s kind of advanced stuff. Who can really say? If we had more people at his level then we’d be in a better place.
Someone asked me about Sequelitis, that’s next. Soon®