SC Controversial Topics and General Shitposting Thread

DanteSC3 said:
even though it is still Kamurocho and Sotenbori, it's like night and day, the graphical direction and level of detail is simply off the charts in Kiwami 2 compared to 0 and Kiwami 1. It almost felt like a new pair of cities,
Click to expand...

In regards to Sotenbori, it is a new city compared to Yakuza 0 (and Yakuza 5) but in a cut content new city way. Not that it mattered when it came to the second story in the series as Sotenbori is closer to it's original map than Yakuza 5 and Yakuza 0.

Sotenbori Changes.jpg

As for Sotenbori not being in Yakuza Kiwami 1, it's because it wasn't in the original either. Kamurocho is the only city that's playable in every game, most of other locations throughout the series only get visited once. Sotenbori is the exception which is cool as it's a damn fine location to visit.
 
I look at those two maps and don't feel too miffed by some cut content... though I have only played the PS2 yakuza 1 and 2 games to completion. Dropped Yakuza 3 in fall 2019 due to school.

But man I did not enjoy the PS2 titles as much as I would have if I played them in the PS2 era of gaming. I was just mostly slogging through them for the story and the promise of a series improving....

So with me not enjoying Yakuza 1 and 2 that much...some cut content from Sotenbori won't kill me....

(Been playing Dark Souls 2 at the moment....I can't be bothered to play past the scorpion in FF7R)
 
@Dissidia

There isn't any cut content when it comes to Sotenbori, Yakuza 2 Kiwami's map has more content than the original Sotenbori map from Yakuza 2. Y5 and Y0 are the games which expanded on the original map, it's just that with the Kiwami 2 map it's more in line with the original PS2 layout.
 
sytus said:
@Dissidia

There isn't any cut content when it comes to Sotenbori, Yakuza 2 Kiwami's map has more content than the original Sotenbori map from Yakuza 2. Y5 and Y0 are the games which expanded on the original map, it's just that with the Kiwami 2 map it's more in line with the original PS2 layout.
Click to expand...
I just find it a little strange that 0 and Kiwami were a little more progressive with adding new stuff and Kiwami 2 apparently more faithful to the original, when Kiwami 2 has such a revamped graphical style and physics. I chalked some of the difference up to things changing over time, there being a year between the games, so some things close and other things replace them, some buildings get knocked down and new ones built, that sort of thing.

Dissidia said:
I look at those two maps and don't feel too miffed by some cut content... though I have only played the PS2 yakuza 1 and 2 games to completion. Dropped Yakuza 3 in fall 2019 due to school.
Click to expand...
I’m the opposite, as a late comer to the series, I’ve played 0 and Kiwami 1, working on Kiwami 2. I figured playing the PS2 games today would be not as pleasant or in their prime, else they wouldn’t have made the Kiwamis. I’m also appreciative of what 0 did, curious what the experience would have been without it. Also curious about what the transition is going to be from Kiwami 2 to 3, 3 not having been given the “remake” treatment, just an HD Remaster along with 4 and 5. I’ll find out, I suppose. I have considered playing the PS2 versions of 1-2 before playing 3, to see for the differences and such myself, but I haven’t committed to anything just yet.

Dissidia said:
t man I did not enjoy the PS2 titles as much as I would have if I played them in the PS2 era of gaming. I was just mostly slogging through them for the story and the promise of a series improving....
Click to expand...
I’m 50/50 feeling like I might feel this way, playing them out of their element, but I also have the curiosity factor to see what they changed or improved. I enjoy seeing that sort of thing, version differences and such, so I feel I’d have a good time of it, but I haven’t had all that many complaints of the games so far, have loved them, and not sure if I’d risk a shot of seeing them at a lower point, though it’s hard to imagine them not being great. I just maybe feel like the transition from 2 to 3 might feel more natural than Kiwami 2 to 3.

Dissidia said:
(Been playing Dark Souls 2 at the moment....I can't be bothered to play past the scorpion in FF7R)
Click to expand...
Not enjoying the remake?
 
@DanteSC3 I bought Yakuza 1 and 2 on PS2 for my backwards compatible PS3 sometime from 2006 to 2009. I never got around to fully playing them due to backlog being big.. So when the kiwamis came out I decided I would finish what I paid for and then move on through the series by release date rather than by chronological order.

As for FF7R I did not have a great first impression of the game after almost getting my ass beat by the Scorpion...its not a bad game or making me completely uninterested like FFXV I just...don't feel the addictive need to play.

Knowing that its not the full FF7 experience makes me feel jaded and cynical as well. I will have to get back into it and play soon though because people are gonna be letting spoilers become easy to find on youtube and other threads so I need to move fast!
 
DanteSC3 said:
I just find it a little strange that 0 and Kiwami were a little more progressive with adding new stuff and Kiwami 2 apparently more faithful to the original, when Kiwami 2 has such a revamped graphical style and physics. I chalked some of the difference up to things changing over time, there being a year between the games, so some things close and other things replace them, some buildings get knocked down and new ones built, that sort of thing.
Click to expand...

I'm only on about the map layout, not the contents of Sotenbori being faithful to the original as we already see with cabaret. You're probably unaware but the Yakuza games are budget titles, Kiwami 2's Sotenbori not being as expansive as Y5 and Y0 will be more due to time and budget than being faithful to the original. RGG didn't give a shit about faithfulness with the Majima everywhere system.
 
Dissidia said:
As for FF7R I did not have a great first impression of the game after almost getting my ass beat by the Scorpion...its not a bad game or making me completely uninterested like FFXV I just...don't feel the addictive need to play.

Knowing that its not the full FF7 experience makes me feel jaded and cynical as well. I will have to get back into it and play soon though because people are gonna be letting spoilers become easy to find on youtube and other threads so I need to move fast!
Click to expand...
I’ll manage, I’m still not going to play it until it comes to PC, though I’m not really certain what possible massive spoilers could happen for a game that’s over twenty years old, even if it is a remake. I don’t have any channels that would have spoilers given so readily and I don’t see people anymore due to COVID-19, so I think I’m safe. I’m keeping myself busy with Yakuza currently, but I’ve got plenty of other things to do while I wait.

sytus said:
I'm only on about the map layout, not the contents of Sotenbori being faithful to the original as we already see with cabaret. You're probably unaware but the Yakuza games are budget titles, Kiwami 2's Sotenbori not being as expansive as Y5 and Y0 will be more due to time and budget than being faithful to the original. RGG didn't give a shit about faithfulness with the Majima everywhere system.
Click to expand...
I mean yeah, there are some things that are obviously budgetary restrictions that I’ve noticed as I’ve been playing, graphical inconsistency with character models and that sort of thing, so I could see that as being a thing. They’ve still managed to do plenty with what they had, though, you can really feel the soul of the team giving it their all, I think so anyway. But that’s also why I want to play the originals, to see how faithful they were or weren’t, and I like the games well enough that I wouldn’t mind a “replay” of sorts, especially because 3 and beyond aren’t being remade with Kiwami stuff in mind, for context.
 
So what level of fantasy can Soulcalibur be considered? High fantasy? Low fantasy? Probably changed throughout the games? Like I'd say low fantasy until 4 where things got ridiculous if you ignored supernatural/fantastic elements such as Lizardmen and the two swords.
 
In general it’s pretty low fantasy, grounded by anime standards. It only gets high fantasy when Astral Chaos is unleashed, because otherwise it is just the normal world with supernatural elements introduced.
 
Yeah it kinda seems low fantasy, barring whatever nonsense astral chaos happens to be creating. The system of magic/malfestation is fairly set in stone. Generally, most characters not directly liked to malfestation, the REAL gods or soul calibur don't have the ability to use any kind of supernatural power, with the notable exceptions of Taki and Talim. A lot of the things that are closer to high fantasy are mostly linked to soul edge which kind of shifts it more into low fantasy imo.

As a sidenote, it's probably not a good idea to take gameplay as an indicator, at which point i would say it is a lot closer to high fantasy. It's very animesque.
 
I think the fact that the premise of the series is grounded in world history should be enough to consider it low fantasy. Just from an overall standpoint.

Like Ukkesh mentioned, once you take a closer look at the people directly related to the swords, then the immediate setting shifts into high fantasy (immortals, mages, elves, demons, that kind of shebang).
 
Even then, they sort of do that Assassin's Creed thing where the swords aren't unlike the Pieces of Eden, explanations for feats of the past through supernatural powers. But the line gets blurred when other races come into play, not to mention Automatons/Golems. But the Aval Organization keeps most if not all of this out of public view, so the general folk would be none the wiser to any of this extraplanar stuff.
 
Assassins creed is such a sad pathetic series now! I haven't played anything past Syndicate but it seems the new games are now loot/exploration rpgs instead of the old parkour assassins style of gameplay....

Easier to sell microtransactions in an rpg though!
 
Yeah, I stopped at Origins too, not sure who decided to change the direction so wildly, especially in the prequel game of all places, but... Odyssey didn’t look great either, so I’ve pretty much written it off. It was kinda nice for a while, though.
 
I actually enjoyed Origins mostly for the Egyptian spin, but I never touched Odyssey because the concept of being a gladiator is so vastly different from what an assassin was meant to be, lmao.
 
Fatal_Exodus said:
I actually enjoyed Origins mostly for the Egyptian spin, but I never touched Odyssey because the concept of being a gladiator is so vastly different from what an assassin was meant to be, lmao.
Click to expand...
Being fair, pirate was pretty far removed from assassin as well, though also, to the game’s credit, Edward wasn’t actually an assassin until very late into the game, so I thought it was handled well enough. I’m not sure if Odyssey does the same kind of thing or not, but neither Bayek nor the protagonists from Odyssey seem particularly skilled at assassination, rather they’re just straight up brawlers.
 
DanteSC3 said:
Being fair, pirate was pretty far removed from assassin as well, though also, to the game’s credit, Edward wasn’t actually an assassin until very late into the game, so I thought it was handled well enough. I’m not sure if Odyssey does the same kind of thing or not, but neither Bayek nor the protagonists from Odyssey seem particularly skilled at assassination, rather they’re just straight up brawlers.
Click to expand...

Bayek's wife (and then ex-wife) was definitely the more definitive assassin between the two, but I feel like the setting and approach of the game allowed Bayek to still fulfill the standard assassin role that popularized the games. Can't say much about Odyssey, however.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back