Latest / Critical Error / The Ocarina of Time Remake Is a Trap

Transcript

The Ocarina of Time Remake Is a Trap · Critical Error

0:08
Yo, that was good. Oh, thanks. Did you
0:11
just Did you just make that up?
0:12
>> A critical error is an error which the
0:14
OS cannot reasonably ignore.
0:17
Jake Steinberg is a streamer and writer
0:19
and certified yapper. Complimentary.
0:22
Peter Hunt
0:24
tech is a YouTuber, journalist, and
0:26
certified yapper. Derogatory. These are
0:29
the things they cannot reasonably
0:30
ignore.
0:31
>> A prominent leaker says that a Legend of
0:33
Zelda: Ocarina of Time remake is coming.
0:37
It is imminent at the end of this year.
0:42
How will we talk about this game? How
0:44
will we define this game? Should we talk
0:47
about it like it is a new thing? Is this
0:49
an object of preservation? Is this an
0:53
opportunity to reinterpret Ocarina of
0:56
Time? Is it a replacement for the
1:00
original game? A remake, a remaster? So
1:03
much swirling around in our minds as we
1:05
approach the alleged Legend of Zelda:
1:08
Ocarina of Time remake. Peter, how are
1:11
we going to talk about this? How are we
1:12
going to tackle it? Such a big thing.
1:14
>> Uh, so here's the deal.
1:17
I have no idea to be entirely honest
1:20
with you. I just I have literally no
1:21
idea. Okay,
1:22
>> because
1:23
>> Yes.
1:25
C can you name a game with a bigger
1:28
reputation?
1:30
>> No. This this game talk about big shoes
1:33
to fill and I do think that our
1:37
conversation that is going to revolve
1:40
around around the Ocarina of Time remake
1:42
I think everybody participating it if
1:44
you get an early review code you know
1:47
that you have a little bit of a
1:49
responsibility here. This is going to be
1:50
the one that you really think about what
1:52
you're saying and how you're approaching
1:54
the material. And I wonder, do we know
1:57
will the conversations that will erupt
1:59
from this game, will they orbit a lot of
2:01
ideas that we've talked about on this
2:03
podcast in the past, will there be
2:05
discourse surrounding if it is faithful
2:07
enough or or too faithful? Will there be
2:10
is it is it still Ocarina? Is it still
2:13
Ocarina?
2:14
>> Is it a remake? Is it a remaster? A
2:16
reimagining even a remix? I think that
2:19
this game is really for newcomers more
2:22
than it is for the
2:23
>> But Jake, you're here's what you're
2:25
forgetting, dude. That fans of the
2:26
original are going to walk away
2:27
satisfied.
2:29
>> Okay. Okay. I thought it was really more
2:31
to just kind of kind of introduce them
2:32
with a new coat of paint.
2:33
>> No, no, no, no, no. I see.
2:35
>> Uh, you know, we're sort of joking here,
2:38
>> but I do I I think I would be
2:41
>> I think it is an unenviable position to
2:43
have to write a review for that game. I
2:45
like like like we have talked so much
2:48
about how we think reviews should be
2:49
structured and and and how you know keep
2:52
it close to the text. Keep it close to
2:53
the text. But
2:55
>> if there's a game that I'm willing to
2:56
bet that anyone who like plays video
2:58
games regularly has played
3:01
>> I would be hardressed to think of a game
3:03
that more people would have played than
3:05
I think Ocarina of Time. Is that a fair
3:07
assumption?
3:08
>> Oh my god, it is beyond a fair
3:09
assumption. And I and I think beyond
3:11
people having come into contact with
3:13
Ocarina of Time, you find something even
3:16
more unique in the space, which is how
3:19
many people in games media at large have
3:23
written a list or appeared on a podcast
3:25
and said that maybe this is the greatest
3:28
game of all time.
3:29
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And now, how married
3:33
are you to that proclamation? How much
3:35
cover does that proclamation
3:38
allow for when you reassess the game?
3:40
Because if you encounter something in
3:41
the game that you find is maybe it hits
3:44
your brain in a way that is outdated,
3:46
let's say,
3:48
do you immediately kind of apologize for
3:50
it being outdated because you know at
3:53
the time this was a classic. This was
3:55
great at the time and you go, "It's
3:57
okay. I'm willing to apologize for that
3:59
because I know how great this game is."
4:02
>> Yeah. Yeah. It's so difficult. It's like
4:04
it's like trying to build a jury of your
4:07
peers, right? And like an unbiased jury
4:10
of your peers, but it's impossible
4:11
because I think I think that this game
4:13
is too big.
4:14
>> It's too big. People people are going to
4:16
have their, you know, preconceived
4:18
notions about it and
4:22
we've talked a lot before like we we did
4:24
an episode specifically about sequels
4:26
and like do you need to discuss the
4:28
original game in order to talk about the
4:30
sequel? And and something that we landed
4:32
on pretty firmly is no, you don't. You
4:34
don't you can if it's relevant, but it
4:37
should not be a crutch. It should not be
4:38
a crutch to discuss this. And I do think
4:40
that with Legend of Zelda Ocarina of
4:42
Time, I think there will be ways to
4:45
discuss the original and then even the
4:46
3DS remake in connection to this
4:50
potential remake without it just being a
4:53
list of, well, it does all this the same
4:54
and does all this different? cuz I think
4:56
that
4:59
there is there is an interesting
5:00
conversation to be had about how games
5:03
are made to sort of like interact with
5:05
each other or whatever. However,
5:08
>> I am worried that so much of the
5:10
conversation with this is just going to
5:12
be discussing the merit of the original
5:15
Ocarina of Time and not really to
5:16
talking about what this game
5:18
specifically is doing removed from that
5:21
context. You know, we've we've seen the
5:23
the the SKS from our peers when there's
5:26
a game months into the future and you've
5:29
got somebody who of course does not have
5:31
a job in games media saying, "I should
5:33
review this.
5:35
>> I am an expert on this game on this
5:37
franchise. You should give me the
5:39
review."
5:40
>> And
5:42
it's that kind of person that I do think
5:45
ends up covering these games and
5:47
reviewing them more often than not. And
5:48
then you find that the reviews
5:50
themselves are largely centering
5:53
proximity to the original as the primary
5:56
point of conversation. It's what you
5:58
said. It's like okay with the original
6:00
in mind it keeps this but it does this
6:03
differently. What do we think about that
6:06
those choices looking at each choice and
6:08
saying okay art style I like this art
6:12
style in in comparison to what it once
6:15
was what it does in conversation with
6:17
that thing. And I and I guess I'm just
6:19
like wondering like here's a question
6:22
like I think maybe the easy question
6:23
that people are expecting me to ask
6:25
right here is do you have to talk about
6:27
the original when you review the new
6:29
one? But the question I'm most
6:31
interested in asking actually is
6:34
is that that interesting
6:37
>> because I don't I don't know if it's if
6:39
you should or shouldn't and I don't know
6:41
if I even really care. My question is,
6:43
am I dying to read that kind of
6:46
appraisal? Because
6:48
>> this is this is what I was sort of
6:50
getting at with when we talk about like
6:51
sequels. Uh,
6:54
>> you can you you can certainly bring it
6:56
up, but at the end of the day, is it
6:58
going to be interesting or am I going to
7:00
get a the same exact feeling from
7:03
watching some sideby-side comparison
7:05
video, right? Because those are
7:07
certainly going to exist. Those exist
7:09
with every remake ever made. Um, I
7:12
suppose I look forward to seeing them
7:13
when that Star Fox remake comes out. It
7:16
it's it's just going to happen because
7:18
especially because of the uh pedigree of
7:21
Ocarina of Time, but at the end of the
7:23
day, that's interesting enough for me to
7:26
sort of watch in a video and and go,
7:27
"Oh, okay, sure." But then I just move
7:30
on. And and and but there's there's not
7:32
much uh substance there. I don't think
7:33
I'm ever going to be thinking back to
7:36
the sideby-side comparison video that
7:37
Nintendo itself might even make in the
7:40
in the direct announcement. I'm sure.
7:44
Right. I'm sure like, hey, you remember
7:45
Kakaro Village? Well, this ain't your
7:47
dad's Kakaro Village. This is what it
7:49
looks like now. There's sculas
7:51
everywhere or whatever.
7:52
>> Wow. your little vision into the future
7:54
there of seeing the Nintendo Direct
7:56
where they show you the old one as well
7:58
as the new one
7:58
>> and like walks really slowly this way
8:00
and then they just do the exact same
8:02
thing and the big sweeping camera thing.
8:04
Yeah,
8:04
>> absolutely. On the money and Okay,
8:06
here's a kind of provocative question
8:08
for the audience.
8:09
>> Provoke, please.
8:11
>> Is it not reasonable to think that
8:15
Ocarina of Time, if I poofed Ocarina of
8:19
Time out of existence, it never it never
8:21
happened. Oh my gosh.
8:22
>> Okay, it never happened. And here we are
8:25
in 2026 and a new Zelda game comes out
8:27
called The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of
8:29
Time. I cross out the word remake. I
8:32
cross it out. This is a new tank.
8:34
>> Okay.
8:35
>> Is it not insane to think that maybe in
8:38
2026?
8:41
>> It might not be the greatest game of all
8:43
time.
8:43
>> This is my question. So, I want a good
8:46
question
8:47
>> because now I think other games are
8:50
Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay.
8:52
I'm somebody that prefers Breath of the
8:54
Wild to Tears of the Kingdom because I
8:56
judge Tears of the Kingdom in a post
8:58
Breath of the Wild world.
8:59
>> Yes.
9:00
>> So, if another ca game came out after
9:02
Breath of the Wild and just did
9:03
everything Breath of the Wild did, I
9:04
would go, well,
9:06
>> no.
9:07
>> Well, you just, you know, you're eating
9:09
their lunch a little bit,
9:10
>> right? There is no like vacuum of time
9:12
and space that I go okay the the ghost
9:15
of objectivity is haunting me and I and
9:18
I must look at this game as if I am
9:19
judging its material on an objective
9:21
scale. That's not what happens. Um the
9:23
great Walter Benjamin, a work of art in
9:25
the age of mechanical reproduction said
9:27
that every single piece of entertainment
9:30
has an aura tied to it.
9:32
>> Sure. This this aura is made up of
9:34
uniqueness, the historical moment, the
9:38
material conditions, the technological
9:39
context, and the social experience. So,
9:42
I think that this is incredibly relevant
9:44
to remakes because the Ocarine of Time
9:48
remake, of course, can reproduce the
9:51
story and the mechanics and the and and
9:53
the the characters, whatever it is. Um,
9:56
but it cannot reproduce the fact that it
9:59
was one of the first large scale 3D
10:01
games. It cannot reproduce it's the
10:03
technical revelation aspect of it. Um,
10:06
and it cannot reproduce the fact that it
10:07
came out in the '9s and for so many of
10:09
us came out when we were kids and that's
10:11
how we first experienced it.
10:13
>> And the fact that it was it like sold
10:14
the idea of the video game adventure.
10:17
>> Yeah, of course. Of course.
10:18
>> It was I mean, of course, there were
10:19
other games that did this sort of thing.
10:21
I mean, obviously Mario 64 preceded it,
10:24
which was itself its own sort of version
10:25
of that, but the of the high fantasy
10:30
adventure that I think is so
10:33
I kind of associate high fantasy with
10:35
video games. I mean, of course, it
10:36
exists elsewhere, right, in in novels
10:38
and and even like tabletop games and and
10:40
stuff like that, but
10:42
>> I think part of the reason why I have
10:44
that uh connection to to games is
10:47
because of this game,
10:48
>> of course. And I I think what you're
10:50
hitting on here is a question that was
10:53
asked a lot about the Resident Evil 4
10:56
remake because as Resident Evil is such
10:57
an influential or Resident Evil 4 is
10:59
such an influential video game, but if
11:02
you remake that now, could it possibly
11:05
be as
11:08
uh revolutionary? And the answer when
11:10
they made it is no. It's still a fine
11:12
game. And we talk about this a little
11:13
bit, by the way, in our bonus episode on
11:14
our Patreon. patreon.com/critical error.
11:16
if you're interested in checking that
11:17
out, become a $5 member of the nation to
11:19
get that and you know, plenty of other
11:21
bonus uh episodes and bonus content.
11:23
But, uh, with Ocarina of Time, you're so
11:27
right, we can't go back to before that
11:28
happened. So, if it comes out again, if
11:30
if you, you know, drop it today, are
11:31
people going to look around be like, "Oh
11:32
my gosh, this is the greatest thing of
11:34
all time." I I don't know. I I don't I
11:36
have no uh question about whether or not
11:39
people will think it's good because I
11:40
think that at the end of the day removed
11:43
from all of the uh firsts and whatever
11:46
else you want to say about Ocarina of
11:47
Time, I do think there are it's a
11:49
tightly designed game. I think it's a
11:50
great for the most part it's a very
11:52
well-designed game, but is just being a
11:55
well-designed game enough to land it in
11:57
the this is the greatest of all time if
11:58
it came out today and was not a remake?
12:00
I don't I don't think so.
12:01
>> I Yes, I completely agree. And I and I
12:03
think that there is a you know we
12:05
possess decades of video game design
12:09
literacy now that we did not at the
12:11
time. And I think to to like pretend
12:14
that
12:16
we see things and consume entertainment
12:20
>> regardless of all of these other
12:22
extraneous factors and the only thing
12:24
that matters is the text itself I think
12:26
is just like such a lie. So what made
12:31
Ocarina of Time meaningful originally I
12:34
think cannot be separated from the when
12:36
and how of you know how it originally
12:39
appeared.
12:40
>> So so so it's just this like very
12:42
interesting situation because the the
12:44
fact of the matter is is that if you
12:46
produce like a onetoone remake in some
12:48
in some sense of Ocarina of Time, it
12:51
simply cannot have the significance that
12:54
>> Well, remember when they did this with
12:55
the Psycho, the movie Psycho? They did a
12:57
shot forshot recreation of it with um
13:00
I'm forgetting the actor's name. I can
13:02
see him so clearly in my mind, but they
13:04
did a a shot forshot recreation of the
13:07
movie and it was like not that good. And
13:09
and and you know, I'm not saying that if
13:11
you go back and watch the original
13:12
Psycho that you're going to be quaking
13:14
in your boots, I suppose, but there is a
13:16
certain uh you said aura. What did you
13:19
say? Everything has an aura to it.
13:21
>> Everything has an aura. Yeah, that's not
13:22
me, though. That's that's Yeah.
13:23
>> Right. Right. Sorry. But there is an
13:25
aura to the original creation of
13:28
something that is potentially lost when
13:30
you are remaking it, recreating it,
13:32
whatever. That's not to say that you
13:34
can't do something good with that or
13:36
make your own aura. I think something
13:38
like the Silent Hill 2 remake, which I
13:40
think is pretty good, has a different
13:42
aura from the original. Different. Both
13:45
good, but different.
13:48
It's tough though because let me let me
13:51
try to sell you on this.
13:52
>> Yeah, go ahead. I think the fact that it
13:54
is getting a remake at all
13:57
>> is a signal to the audience.
13:59
>> Yes, this is important.
14:00
>> There is there is prestige. Yes. And
14:03
there is this is like event status. You
14:05
know, it's like when you take an old
14:06
movie and you replay it in the theater,
14:08
however many, you know, years later or
14:11
we can even see that happening um soon,
14:13
I think with one of these Avengers
14:15
movies is getting put back in theaters
14:17
before
14:17
>> Oh, it is. Yeah.
14:19
So, you know, so there's there's like a
14:23
>> there's something happening there. And I
14:25
think that a remake has particular
14:28
signals. And then I think a remaster
14:30
also has particular signals because a
14:32
remaster I think is more about
14:36
Okay. So, Ocarine of Time 3D on the 3DS.
14:39
>> Yeah.
14:40
>> Okay. This is a game that I think we can
14:42
all decidedly we we have kind of a set
14:44
impression of it. This is not It didn't
14:47
blow the world away. I don't think it it
14:50
is. We know what it is.
14:51
>> When When did it come out? I mean,
14:53
>> it came out shortly after the 3DS did
14:56
itself. I think. Um
14:58
>> Okay.
14:58
>> Yeah. Right in that right in that
15:00
window. Uh I was I I almost convinced
15:02
myself that it was a 3DS launch game,
15:04
but yeah,
15:05
>> brother. This came out in 2011.
15:09
>> Oh my gosh.
15:11
>> Rough, dude. Little song of time right
15:14
there. All right. for real. Yeah. Sorry,
15:16
you were saying
15:17
>> Yeah. I So, I think that uh because that
15:19
game specifically I would categorize as
15:22
a remaster as opposed to a remake. I
15:26
would also say that there's a there's a
15:27
signal there that is concerned with like
15:30
this archival respect. It's like giving
15:33
people an opportunity to play this game
15:36
in this way, in this sense, kind of
15:39
introducing them to the thing that it
15:40
was. And that is like the fact that it
15:45
exists is kind of like you need to
15:47
understand this is important enough for
15:48
this to even exist,
15:50
>> right? It this company took a look
15:52
around and said people want this.
15:54
>> Mhm.
15:54
>> This is an import this is a landmark
15:56
title. People want this. And yeah,
15:59
>> I would say if we if we move closer into
16:03
remake status, there's a different
16:05
signal there. There is there is
16:07
something that I think by by even
16:11
>> by even venturing into the world of
16:13
remake I think what you are saying is
16:16
that there is if if I may be so bold
16:21
the perception that there is room for
16:23
improvement. Yes. And I and and I know
16:25
that that's not I know some people make
16:26
it a little sensitive about me saying
16:28
that because it's like uh the
16:29
improvement of the art blah blah blah
16:31
you know but I'm just saying from their
16:32
from their point of view there is
16:34
something that's like we can do this
16:36
differently. We can do this. Yeah.
16:38
Because I I think what you're hitting on
16:40
is something that a lot of people talk
16:42
about. I think this is a pro probably in
16:45
my
16:48
not opinion but just like my
16:51
I'm blanking on the words here.
16:54
I have talked with people who are who
16:57
talk about how a version of a game that
16:59
is remade is the better version and just
17:03
on the just on the idea that it is the
17:04
newer one and it is made with more um
17:08
current design philosophies in mind.
17:10
>> And I'm not going to argue with anyone
17:12
who thinks that a one version of a game
17:14
is better than another. That's their
17:15
opinion. That's totally fine. However, I
17:18
do completely disagree and I don't think
17:21
it's necessarily an uncommon push back
17:24
to disagree with the idea that if it is
17:26
remade, it is better by default because
17:28
the developers decided, oh, we're going
17:30
to fix quote unquote fix the problems
17:31
with the original because who gets to
17:33
decide what the problems were? And also,
17:35
I think a lot of the time you look at
17:36
like design limitations
17:39
lead to a lot of innovation. Uh, I I
17:42
think about um filmmakers who when they
17:45
were younger had to be a lot scrappier.
17:46
I think about someone like Quinton
17:48
Tarantino uh had limitations he had to
17:50
work with or Martin Scorsesei had
17:52
limitations he had to work with and then
17:55
they had to figure out how to get around
17:57
those limitations and now they're at the
17:59
point where they can make whatever they
18:00
want but they don't have to prove that
18:02
they're great filmmakers anymore because
18:04
they are able to just do whatever they
18:07
want to do. Does that make sense?
18:09
>> No. Yeah, it it definitely does. And I
18:10
and I think that there is a kind of
18:13
welltrodden
18:15
thing that creatives are familiar with
18:17
just in terms of how constraints can can
18:21
really influence your creativity and
18:23
have a positive effect on what you're
18:25
able to do.
18:26
>> And that's what makes that's what makes
18:27
great artists, I think. And I think
18:28
video games do a similar thing. You look
18:30
at uh I think about like Persona 5. That
18:34
game was dealing with a lot of load
18:36
screens, loading times. Oh, sure. based
18:38
on it had to be on the PS3 and the PS4
18:42
>> because they promised it on the PS3. I
18:43
think it was like one of the last games
18:44
to come out. It doesn't matter. They
18:45
promised it on both of those consoles.
18:46
And so they were like, we're going to
18:47
launch it on both those consoles. So
18:48
what do we do to get around the fact
18:50
that there's going to be a lot of
18:50
downtime where people are not playing
18:52
the game? What if we dress them up? What
18:54
if we make that calendar system? What if
18:55
we have these interstitial moments where
18:57
you're hearing like gossip on the
18:59
street? That's working around the
19:01
limitations of hardware, of design, and
19:05
being able to create something that is
19:06
what makes that game kind of compelling
19:09
and interesting. And now imagine you
19:11
just kind of articulated a effect that
19:14
this artistic choice is having on you.
19:16
Now imagine a remaster or a remake,
19:19
something of that game comes out. They
19:20
have eliminated the load screens
19:22
entirely. They call it quality of life.
19:24
I don't even have to because the PS5
19:27
version of Persona 5 Royal, it doesn't
19:29
cut those out, but because the loading
19:30
is so much faster because of whatever
19:32
change in the hardware, the calendar
19:34
goes like and it's gone and it basically
19:36
completely erases it. And you have this
19:38
moment where you're like, "Oh, there was
19:40
something to taking a second and seeing
19:43
what day it is and what's coming up in
19:44
the future that having this one second
19:47
of downtime actually did add that is
19:49
gone in this different version." It's
19:51
not gone, but it's just different.
19:54
>> Yeah. So, I think maybe an undervalued
19:56
part of this conversation surrounding
19:58
remakes is the separation of what the
20:03
game is doing and kind of the grammar of
20:06
video games themselves. Because the
20:08
truth is is that modernization or as I
20:11
just said, um, quality of life, which is
20:15
a term we like to throw around a lot
20:17
when we talk about games, especially
20:18
especially remakes and remasters.
20:20
Quality of life is a um
20:25
an ideological argument because you are
20:28
making assumptions about what a
20:30
contemporary audience supposedly values
20:33
or will tolerate, right?
20:34
>> Or um what kind of experiences a modern
20:38
game should prioritize. So maybe one of
20:41
those is like
20:43
>> waiting as a concept. It's like oh yeah,
20:45
no, we don't see value in withholding.
20:49
we don't see value in that weight, so
20:51
we're going to take it away and call it
20:53
a feature. Right?
20:55
>> I think a lot about the idea of viewing
20:58
those sorts of things as mistakes
21:00
because I think it's fascinating that uh
21:02
whether or not something was an
21:04
intentional choice doesn't really matter
21:05
to me because I'm playing it. And so
21:08
when I'm actually playing it, I get to
21:09
choose what I think is valuable and and
21:11
and whatnot, which is how we get to the
21:14
problem of everyone's going to have
21:15
their own takeaways of it. Um, but I
21:17
it's interesting recently seeing like
21:19
examples of games that have shaved off
21:22
um maybe rough edges in for the sake of
21:26
mass appeal but then sort of losing
21:28
sight of what made those rough edges
21:29
kind of interesting and novel or
21:32
compelling in the first place. Uh,
21:33
Sorrowos just came out and one of the
21:35
big conversations surrounding Sorrowos
21:36
is, hey,
21:38
>> uh, this game is a little easier for a
21:40
handful of different reasons, but it it
21:42
doesn't really it's not really
21:44
interested in having you like start at
21:46
the beginning in the way that a lot of
21:47
Rogue Lights do. And following from
21:50
Returnal, a game that was sort of
21:52
notorious for being having a punishing
21:54
reset when you die, there was this
21:57
conversation about, okay, Sorrowos has a
21:59
quality of life change, quote unquote,
22:00
quality of life in that you do not have
22:02
to do these super long runbacks to get
22:04
to back to where you were um to to fight
22:07
the next boss or progress or whatever.
22:09
However, in making that quality of life
22:12
change, you've sort of made a version of
22:16
this this game that maybe has less teeth
22:19
and has less of a unique identity to it
22:22
because we're just getting rid of this
22:23
thing that was kind of a unique
22:24
identifier for um like Fraternal and
22:27
then other uh uh like rogue lights in
22:29
the genre.
22:30
>> And I think ultimately what that comes
22:32
down to is this question for you as the
22:36
player now. Um, you have probably had a
22:40
certain set of expectations going from
22:42
Returnal to Sorrows.
22:43
>> Yeah.
22:44
>> And I think that that's probably valid,
22:46
right? You look at a screenshot between
22:47
each of the games and I'm going to say
22:49
they look largely the same.
22:50
>> Very easy to go if uh I I think you
22:53
could be like, wait,
22:55
>> this is not a sequel. I think is is the
22:57
sort of question because when I was
22:59
playing it, I was like, is there is this
23:00
secretly a sequel to Returnal and the
23:02
and Selen's going to show up at the end
23:03
or whatever? The answer is no. Um, but
23:06
yes, I there are very similar games.
23:08
>> Yeah. Visually.
23:09
>> And I I almost wonder now if if the
23:12
games are signaling to you successfully
23:15
that they are similar and I think that
23:17
maybe that is something they are trying
23:19
to say. Um,
23:21
is there some kind of critical failing
23:24
at play where the game is telling you,
23:27
hey, these games are similar, but then
23:29
you go to play them and something about
23:30
the
23:32
something about the mechanics of playing
23:34
them, it reveals to you that they're
23:36
actually quite different. Who is that?
23:38
Is that a Is that an error of the game
23:40
or is that an error of our assumption in
23:43
what we were expecting going into it?
23:45
>> I think it's possible that it could be
23:46
both. Yeah,
23:47
>> I think I think that genre is kind of an
23:49
interesting thing because
23:52
>> the reason we have genres is so that we
23:54
can just get like quick snapshots of
23:57
what to expect from a game. I think does
23:58
that feel like a it's like a marketing
24:00
thing for the most part. Does that feel
24:01
like it's a accurate way to describe it?
24:03
>> It feels entirely accurate. Yes.
24:04
>> Yeah. And so you can just say, "Oh, this
24:06
is a ROG light." And you kind of just
24:09
get an a general assumption for what the
24:10
systems are going to be like. you're
24:11
you're going to miss a lot of the broad
24:12
strokes of what makes it unique and and
24:15
uh different and all that, but I I I
24:17
think you are going to end up with a
24:18
general assumption for what it is.
24:21
>> When a game markets itself as one thing,
24:23
but then is not that thing, I don't
24:26
necessarily think that's then on the
24:28
player to
24:32
have not have to grapple with, but I I
24:34
don't think that's a problem that the
24:35
player has created. Would you agree?
24:38
>> Wow. Um, I mean to a certain extent I
24:40
guess it is because you know you could
24:42
play Sorrowos without watching a trailer
24:45
or knowing anything about it, but I
24:46
would also feel like that seems unlikely
24:48
to.
24:49
>> So your question here is how much should
24:52
we trust the marketing for the sake of
24:56
framing our critical evaluation of the
24:59
game?
24:59
>> Yeah.
25:01
>> Wow. Um, my instinct is maybe not at
25:04
all.
25:04
>> Maybe not at all.
25:05
>> Maybe not at all. But then, but do we
25:07
should we then as critics or writers or
25:09
whatever you want to call it just like
25:12
play every game assuming that every
25:14
trailer we've seen is a lie?
25:17
>> Maybe a little bit, right?
25:18
>> Maybe some Yeah.
25:20
>> I think we have to acknowledge that the
25:21
the trailers and the marketing materials
25:23
are um
25:25
>> there's an intention there.
25:26
>> There's an intention there. Yes,
25:28
definitely. And then I think it so it
25:30
turns into this question of like when we
25:32
Okay, let's like let's like zoom way
25:35
out.
25:35
>> Yeah. So when we talk about our framing
25:39
of how we approach a game and kind of
25:42
like what it lives up to and what it
25:43
doesn't, um you Okay, so you said
25:46
something about Soros, a great example.
25:47
This this kind of and I think this will
25:49
be familiar to people who are familiar
25:50
with that game. This like, oh, it's a
25:52
fun game, but it's not a good rogike.
25:55
>> Yes, this is something we hear so often
25:57
in reviews. So, do you say in your
26:01
review, "This is a good game, and I'm
26:03
judging it as a good game," or do you
26:05
say, "Well, it wants to be a rogue light
26:07
and it kind of fails as one." And I
26:10
think I know the answer to this.
26:12
>> Yeah,
26:12
>> I think I I I think I do. And I think
26:15
that this is um related to something
26:17
that I've been talking about a little
26:18
bit in terms of what the game is trying
26:21
to
26:21
>> trying to do, wanting to be.
26:23
>> What does it want to be? What is the
26:24
what is the game trying to be? and and
26:25
and how does it function um in
26:27
accordance to that framing? So so so
26:30
again just to reiterate for the listener
26:31
this this framing how do you identify
26:33
what the game wants to be and is it is
26:35
trying to be? I think it is incorrect to
26:40
kind of arbitrarily say it wants to be a
26:44
rogike but then you look at me and you
26:45
say but Jake they use that term in its
26:47
marketing we know for sure that that's
26:49
what Returnal is like that's what the
26:51
game is trying to be. Look the words are
26:52
right there. I think what you need to do
26:54
is you need to say, "Well, I die and
26:56
start over.
26:57
>> Well, it's got I make these choices. I
26:59
do that." You need to look at the the
27:01
the the expectations that are being set
27:04
up by the thing that you are actually
27:06
playing and say, "Okay, this game is by
27:10
making me start over. I have to repeat
27:13
certain levels. I have to and by
27:15
repeating certain levels, if I'm doing
27:16
the same thing every time, do I get a
27:18
little bored?"
27:19
>> Maybe. and maybe I wouldn't get bored if
27:21
there were more little things mixing up
27:24
my experience. You don't get to say it's
27:27
not a very good rogue light. You in your
27:29
analysis need to recreate the conditions
27:32
through which one desires a rogue light
27:35
and then say that was taken from me. It
27:38
made me want Oh, I I've never even heard
27:40
the term rogue light before. But Jake,
27:41
you were just describing it exactly.
27:43
Well, it's you're able to then truly
27:48
meet the game where it's at with what
27:50
it's doing. Not what it's trying to do,
27:52
not what you think it wants to do, but
27:53
what is it actually doing? Because if it
27:55
is a if it is a game that is, as we, you
27:57
know, you just said, well, it's it's a
27:59
fine action game, but it's a bad bad
28:00
rogue light. Well, what about it as an
28:03
action game is good, and what about
28:05
those rogike elements fail?
28:08
So that way you can start to say like,
28:10
okay, it has these elements that do not
28:13
work mixed in with these elements that
28:15
do work and how do we find meaning out
28:17
of that? And I think it's exactly what
28:18
you're saying where we're where'd you
28:20
word it? You said um make it try to
28:23
recreate the conditions that would make
28:24
you want to be playing a rogike. I think
28:26
that's exactly how it how it is or how
28:28
it should be.
28:29
>> And and it's kind of this it's kind of
28:31
this funny thing, right? because I think
28:33
like
28:34
um it's almost a similar question as to
28:38
who this game is for. And I saw this a
28:41
lot recently with reviews came out for
28:43
Yoshi and the Mysterious Book. And you
28:45
would you would find people kind of
28:46
apologizing for this game by saying,
28:48
"Well, it's for kids." And that's not
28:51
enough because what you need to do is
28:53
again recreate the conditions and say,
28:55
"Well, if you want this, then it
28:59
delivers this." which saying it's for
29:02
kids doesn't really tell me anything
29:04
because I would say every single game
29:06
Nintendo publishes is for kids. So what
29:08
are we doing?
29:09
>> Right?
29:10
>> Any video game with an E rating from the
29:12
ESRB I would say oh that's for kids or
29:14
could be for kids.
29:15
>> Right? So it's this funny thing where
29:17
the game is saying here is an
29:20
expectation and here is how we fulfill
29:22
it. And then you can you can you know
29:24
sus that out and say okay well how well
29:26
does it fulfill that expectation that
29:28
need that that desire in the audience
29:30
that it built itself. And I would say
29:32
that if you create a gameplay loop that
29:36
constantly sends me back to the
29:37
beginning and I have to build myself up
29:39
that not for everybody not in an
29:42
objective way but in my experience of
29:44
playing that game that's going to make
29:46
me want X Y and Z. And then I can look
29:49
at what the game gives me and say this
29:51
fulfills that want or it falls short of
29:54
fulfilling that want that the game
29:55
birthed within me.
29:56
>> I didn't realize that you hopped on over
29:58
back to talking about sorrows and I was
30:00
like do you die and restart at the
30:02
beginning of Yoshi and the mysterious
30:04
book
30:04
>> every time.
30:05
>> Every time.
30:06
>> Every time
30:06
>> keeps coming back. He doesn't know how.
30:09
>> Yeah. Because there were review there's
30:12
a there's a glowing like fivestar review
30:14
on VGC that in its summary at the very
30:17
end has all those up arrows of all the
30:19
positives.
30:19
>> Oh yeah, positive is
30:20
>> and then it has a down arrow and one of
30:21
the down arrows is that it's like not a
30:23
technically hard platformer and Yoshi in
30:26
the Mysterious Book kind of a funny game
30:28
because there is no beginning or the end
30:30
of the level. You just kind of go in and
30:31
then you choose to come out. You go in,
30:33
you find you you answer your questions
30:35
and then you leave. It's kind of like a
30:37
little sandbox. So to even say in that
30:39
review it's not a technically difficult
30:42
platformer and to put that as a negative
30:44
is actually kind of a statement about
30:46
expectations. It's you see Yoshi, you
30:48
see a 2D game and you think I should
30:52
want difficulty in platforming and this
30:55
isn't giving me that. But what in the
30:57
game? What in the game made you expect
31:01
that that was going to be something and
31:03
then you felt that that lack when it
31:05
didn't deliver it? Right. Is it just
31:07
just the existence of Yoshi on a 2D
31:08
plane?
31:09
>> Cuz I think this is interesting because
31:10
I think uh
31:12
you might have people maybe having a
31:15
difficult time understanding the nuance
31:16
here of what we're talking about when we
31:17
say things like uh
31:21
what what was the phrase that we were
31:23
using before about like the way people
31:24
were talking about the Mario movie where
31:25
it's like you don't get it. It's not
31:26
trying not trying to be this.
31:27
>> It's not trying to be a good movie. They
31:29
said
31:29
>> because well cuz you're not arguing and
31:32
we're not arguing. Oh, Yoshi in the
31:34
Mysterious Book is not trying to be a
31:37
difficult platformer, but instead it's
31:39
arguing, no, no, no.
31:42
>> What about this game is making you wish
31:45
that it were? Does it have those
31:47
elements that is it's not pushing you to
31:48
do that? I recently played um I reviewed
31:52
Super Meat Boy 3D
31:54
>> and that is a game that is sometimes a
31:56
very difficult platformer, sometimes
31:58
it's not. And so when you talk about the
32:00
difficulty of that and talk about its
32:02
systems and mechanics and whatnot, it's
32:05
important to uh investigate
32:08
how those systems push you to feel
32:11
>> and not about well this is a game that
32:13
is known, you know, this is a series
32:15
that is known for having very difficult
32:17
platforming sections and so I should
32:19
expect it to have very difficult
32:20
platforming sections. What about it
32:22
pushes you to feel that?
32:23
>> And it's it's not just the marketing,
32:25
>> right? It's the fact that when you sat
32:26
down, I wrote about in my review, the
32:29
first like five levels I breathe through
32:31
without dying and then on the ninth one,
32:32
I had this moment where I was like, "Oh,
32:34
this is going to be a problem." I think
32:37
like there's how this game is is
32:39
actually bringing something to the table
32:40
that I maybe wasn't expecting,
32:41
>> right?
32:42
>> Um, and then I think kind of bringing
32:45
this back to what that really looks like
32:48
in the form of a review or something,
32:51
right? If I'm thinking about I I like
32:53
this Returnal Sorrows comparison. If I'm
32:55
writing my review and I say, uh, this is
32:57
a worse rogue light than Returnal. This
33:00
is worse. It's not Returnal. I think
33:02
maybe the stronger version of what
33:04
you're trying to say there is the
33:06
whatever design decisions here are
33:09
producing a different emotional and
33:11
thematic relationship to failure.
33:13
>> Yeah.
33:14
>> Than Returnal is. Right. That's I think
33:16
the move.
33:17
>> So, yeah. So, it's funny. I think maybe
33:19
an expectation going into this would
33:20
have been somebody might have assumed
33:22
that like um I would have a hard and
33:24
fast rule about like oh you're not
33:26
allowed to bring up returnal in your
33:27
review. No, of course you are. I think
33:28
you I think I think that's perfectly
33:30
natural. Yeah.
33:30
>> But I will say this though that what you
33:33
just outlined about the way you could
33:35
write about sorrow saying yeah it's
33:36
different emotional reaction to dying to
33:39
having to restart whatever. I think it
33:42
is much stronger to talk about it like
33:44
that than to just say then to even bring
33:46
up returnal in that conversation then at
33:48
all. Now you can if that's where is
33:50
sorry we're good.
33:50
>> No no no I actually I I agree with you
33:52
but I think the idea there is is
33:55
slippery slope with people right because
33:57
you just have to if you're going to
33:58
bring up the comparison you can't treat
34:00
returnal as the correct template and the
34:02
objectively superior form.
34:04
>> Correct. It needs to be used as an
34:06
example and you you need to be able to
34:08
analyze that while analyzing, you know,
34:11
Soros or whatever other game in the with
34:13
the same intensity and the same the
34:16
closeness. It cannot just be well return
34:18
this so this it needs it needs to be
34:21
closer than that.
34:22
>> Yeah. Right. And I think um plenty of
34:25
legitimate criti criticism exists that
34:27
uses other outside examples to
34:30
illuminate values and priorities and
34:33
structures and assumptions. And I would
34:36
say, and this is where people might lose
34:37
me, but I would say that bringing in
34:41
returnal as a point of comparison is
34:43
probably just as valid and helpful as
34:45
bringing in anything else.
34:47
>> Yep. Sure.
34:48
>> You know, it's just Yeah, it's just
34:50
about how you do it. So,
34:51
>> can I um not not that this is completely
34:53
unrelated.
34:54
>> Oh my god.
34:55
>> Can I air out a grievance I have real
34:57
quick?
34:58
>> Oh. Oh my god. The airing of grievances
35:01
part of the podcast. Peter, please air
35:03
that grievance out.
35:05
>> I think we all need to understand what a
35:07
followup is and what a spiritual
35:09
successor is. Is this okay? Am I Is this
35:11
okay? Can I just Can I look at the
35:12
camera and just appeal to everyone real
35:14
quick? Hey y'all. Uh,
35:17
it is my understanding
35:20
that a spiritual successor is a game
35:23
made by people who made one game at a
35:25
different studio trying something new,
35:28
but it is in the same sort of vein.
35:30
Think about System Shock. Think about
35:32
Bioshock,
35:34
Returnal,
35:36
and Sorrows. Sorrows is not the
35:37
spiritual successor to Returnal because
35:39
they're a different series that's made
35:41
by the same. It's It's Housemark. That
35:43
is a followup. everyone this uh zero
35:45
parade for dead spies. Everyone's
35:46
calling it a spiritual successor to uh
35:48
Discolesium. My understanding same same
35:50
studio that's a followup. Thank you very
35:52
much. Appreciate it. Is that okay? Is
35:54
that is am I wrong here?
35:56
>> What is the goal of a follow-up? What is
36:00
the goal of a spiritual successor?
36:03
>> I think the goal of a spiritual
36:05
successor is to c like capture the
36:08
spirit of the original. At least that's
36:11
sort of the way I read it. to capture
36:13
the spirit of the original game with a
36:16
new team.
36:18
>> And I understand, you know, shipthesis
36:20
is the housemark that made Returnal the
36:22
same housemark that made Saros.
36:24
Obviously not.
36:26
>> However, I do think that is um important
36:29
to clarify with just the way we're
36:31
talking about things. I don't know. Is
36:32
that is that wrong?
36:33
>> I might say that a followup, the key
36:35
word is evolution.
36:37
>> How does this evolve the the the the
36:39
thing prior? And I think that um that is
36:42
why so I would say that like all sequels
36:46
are follow-ups.
36:47
>> Correct.
36:48
>> And that is why we have the instinct to
36:50
judge sequels relationally rather than
36:52
independently.
36:53
>> 100%.
36:53
>> Okay.
36:54
>> But but you wouldn't say that Soros is a
36:56
sequel to Returnal because it's just
36:57
like sequel I think means that it is in
36:59
the same series and I think kind of a
37:02
square rectangle situation.
37:03
>> Square rectangle. Yes, for sure.
37:05
>> All all sequels are follow-ups. Not all
37:07
follow-ups are sequels.
37:09
>> Oo yeah. So, so now as kind of framing
37:12
it as a follow-up is actually kind of
37:13
helpful because you can see how it has
37:16
um aesthetic obligations. There is a
37:20
assumption of genre and audience memory.
37:22
There's stuff there that like that's why
37:24
that's there because we recognize it as
37:26
a follow-up. It is not born free.
37:28
>> And so, yeah, I so I get that. And then
37:30
I think the spiritual successor is um so
37:36
as opposed to a sequel which would
37:38
inherit canon, I think a spiritual
37:41
successor inherits um like affect.
37:45
>> So I'm think I'm thinking about like
37:47
ukulele,
37:49
>> right? Heavily inspired by because isn't
37:51
that the the team that worked on um
37:53
Banjo Kazouie
37:54
>> to some degree?
37:54
>> To some degree. Right. And it's it's one
37:56
of those things where I think um trying
37:59
to nail down who made what in video
38:02
games and like come up with a specific
38:04
team is kind of like trying to write on
38:05
running water where it's just always
38:07
moving. You just can't 100% do it. But I
38:10
think is the best to the best of our
38:11
ability. I do think that we can say that
38:13
ukulele is a spiritual successor.
38:15
>> It's so funny. I I'm thinking about this
38:18
now. The spiritual successor I think the
38:20
number one thing that it's doing is
38:21
activating nostalgia without being like
38:25
discreetly tied to the thing that it's
38:27
activating.
38:28
>> Yeah, I think that's like what it's
38:30
doing. And I I actually don't think it
38:31
has any obligation beyond that because
38:33
it's like what exactly are we
38:35
inheriting? Is it is it the mechanics,
38:38
the the the the tone, the the authors,
38:41
the the you know, I don't know. But I
38:44
think what it is is that it's like it's
38:47
like I have the feeling that I'm playing
38:49
a Banjo Kazouie game.
38:51
>> I think I think that's important. I
38:53
think in gaming when we talk about
38:54
spiritual successors, we are usually
38:56
talking about inheriting author, right?
38:57
Inherent. So,
38:58
>> I know maybe. Yeah.
38:59
>> I I think I mean like in my experience
39:02
with it, when people use it, that's
39:03
usually what they're talking about. But
39:05
recently, over the last few years, I've
39:06
just been seeing it a lot for studios
39:08
coming up with follow-ups that are just
39:10
not the sequels to to the original
39:12
games. Wow. Spiritual successors are
39:13
crazy because it's like,
39:16
do you even
39:18
I almost this this might be crazy of me,
39:20
so forgive me. I almost feel like it it
39:22
is kind of asking like hey this work
39:24
should be read through the memory of
39:26
another work.
39:28
>> Oh yeah. I mean certainly I mean I think
39:29
like you want to talk about Bioshock. So
39:31
you have System Shock then you go
39:33
Bioshock and then whatever his name is.
39:35
Forget Ken Lavine. Is that him?
39:37
>> Oh yeah.
39:38
>> Yeah. Now he's doing Judas which is then
39:41
now the spiritual successor to Bioshock.
39:43
And so when we play that game I think
39:44
that is the way that game is going to be
39:45
read. No I'm agreeing with you too
39:47
though.
39:47
>> No I know what you mean though. I think
39:49
I think in terms of the authorship
39:50
though I see what you're saying now and
39:52
and I think you're right because now the
39:53
like the only other ones I can come up
39:54
with it's like the authors are the same
39:56
like that blood stained game.
39:57
>> Yeah that's like a Castlevania thing
39:59
right? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So
40:02
>> yeah. Yeah. So I think I think when we
40:03
talk about the idea of like spiritual
40:04
successor versus followup um I
40:07
understand it's like a semantic thing
40:09
but I do think that to a certain extent
40:11
when we are concerned with being writers
40:13
semantics are important right
40:15
>> it's funny the the spiritual successor I
40:17
think has almost like materially emerged
40:20
through what you were saying through the
40:22
volatility of the studio loses the IP
40:25
the the creators are not at this company
40:27
the you know stuff like that and it's
40:28
and now I'm thinking I'm like are there
40:31
movies that are spiritual successors.
40:34
It's like not really it doesn't come as
40:36
immediately.
40:40
>> It doesn't it doesn't come as
40:41
immediately, right?
40:44
>> Right. Because I also I think we are
40:50
dog that's blowing my mind a little bit.
40:52
>> Yeah, I know. So it's almost like a
40:53
thing that we invented in the space
40:55
because of the um
40:59
yeah because of like the conditions of
41:00
the space like like listen listen I
41:02
think I think somebody could tell me
41:04
that like
41:07
>> No, I disagree. I was about to No, I I
41:10
am actually fighting myself right now. I
41:12
was I was about to say like you could
41:13
tell me that like Boogie Knights is a
41:16
spiritual successor to Good Fellas and I
41:19
kind of know what you mean.
41:20
>> Sure. But I but I but I disagree. I
41:24
guess I just disagree. I And in the same
41:26
way that like maybe somebody would make
41:27
the argument about like Mad Max versus
41:30
like Fury Road,
41:32
>> but like I think that that still counts
41:33
as like sequels.
41:35
>> That is a straight up a sequel cuz it's
41:36
the same sequel, right?
41:37
>> Series. Yeah. I think um maybe one of
41:40
the reasons why this seems to be more
41:42
difficult to talk about out in in
41:45
different mediums is because the
41:46
closeness that we associate video game
41:49
studios with the actual like unique
41:52
identity of a game whereas we tend to
41:55
associate the unique identity of a let's
41:58
just say movie with the director and so
42:01
the director
42:03
you know someone like Edgar Wright let's
42:05
say he doesn't do sequels I don't I
42:07
think and so when he makes a movie it's
42:10
going to be its own sort of thing but it
42:13
has that Edgar Wright flare to it and
42:17
then it does it it matters significantly
42:19
less what the rest of the production
42:21
company looks like I think when creating
42:23
films than it does video games because
42:26
of the fact that video games are just
42:27
such a like hands-on medium and it
42:29
really matters how you interact with
42:30
them whereas films you're watching that
42:32
is that
42:34
>> off base that that feels okay
42:36
>> I think that feels Okay. And I And I
42:38
think um
42:39
>> I'm actually very curious what people
42:40
think about this.
42:41
>> Me, too.
42:41
>> And and because these are this is not a
42:42
hill I'm willing to die on 100%.
42:44
>> Not at all. No.
42:45
>> Yeah. Which is we've waited to uh
42:48
strange territory for us. I think
42:50
usually
42:51
>> I'm waiting I want somebody to write an
42:52
essay about like how uh a spiritual
42:55
successor to Taxi Driver is the Joker.
42:59
>> Oh, this is that's actually a good
43:01
thing. Spiritual successor to the movie
43:03
Drive is Nightcrawler
43:04
>> Jake. Yeah.
43:06
>> Yeah. These are good.
43:07
>> This is This is good. Um
43:10
yeah, that that Legend of Zelda Ocarina
43:12
of a Time thing though. I do I do think
43:14
like come what? November,
43:19
December, when are we when are we
43:21
thinking that comes out? Whenever that
43:22
happens, I think that there is going to
43:24
be a lot of really interesting reading
43:27
to be done with maybe a critical eye is
43:30
what I would say about the way that that
43:34
game is discussed both in reviews and
43:37
outside of reviews, all that all that
43:39
stuff. I think it's going to be really
43:40
fascinating.
43:42
>> Should we do a No,
43:44
>> please. What's that? Should we what if
43:47
there was a an episode exclusively
43:49
available on patreon.com/critical error
43:53
>> where we just the whole episode
43:56
>> like went through the reviews like LIKE
43:59
LITERALLY
44:00
>> wow just pulled them up
44:02
>> and just talked about them openly.
44:04
>> Is that is that too immediately
44:08
confrontational?
44:11
>> Um
44:11
>> we'll just read we'll just read
44:13
>> Here's here's what I'll say about that.
44:14
I think I think I'm open I'm open to
44:17
doing that because I would like I would
44:19
like uh people to understand that when
44:22
we're doing something like this, we're
44:23
trying to read closely the at the work,
44:25
right? And we're not talking about the
44:26
author. We're talking about the work
44:28
that's on the page. And I I think that
44:30
there's a way that we can do that that
44:31
is respectful to the person who wrote it
44:33
because we've done that in the past,
44:34
right? Uh we've we've made sure to like
44:36
when we talked about that Zelda I always
44:39
forget the name of this thing. Calamity
44:41
>> what is it called? Yeah. um that didn't
44:43
have an author connected to it and we
44:45
talked about like hey maybe we feel a
44:47
little bit more comfortable doing this
44:48
because whoever this author is can
44:51
understand that we in no way are talking
44:53
about them as a person because we don't
44:54
even know who they are and I think that
44:55
that there's a way for us to be able to
44:57
maybe do that as well when those reviews
45:00
if they if that game even exists but
45:02
when those
45:03
>> I'm mostly interested in it as like a as
45:05
like a curiosity like I wonder what the
45:06
frame I wonder what the framing is. I
45:08
wonder what the frequency of referencing
45:10
the the the original is, what degree of
45:12
familiarity you assume in your audience
45:14
member with the original. Um,
45:16
>> I think it would be really I think it
45:18
would be very fascinating to look at and
45:20
discuss on a, you know, larger scale so
45:22
that we can have specific examples of
45:24
what we're talking about and the way
45:25
that that game is discussed because I
45:27
think it would be Yeah. just
45:28
fascinating.
45:29
>> And criticism, you know, typically it's
45:31
supposed to be the start of a
45:32
conversation, not the end.
45:33
>> Exactly. Exactly. We're very focused on
45:35
verdicts in our games media space,
45:38
>> but maybe we should be a little less
45:39
focused on verdicts. Yeah.
45:41
>> Where did you say that you think we
45:42
should do that bonus episode?
45:44
>> patreon.com/critical error.
45:46
>> Oh, patreon.com/critical error. favorite
45:48
website
45:48
>> for $5 and up members where you get
45:50
access to all of our bonus podcasts
45:52
which include of course the episode that
45:54
we recorded today but our past episodes
45:57
some of the greats where we you know sat
45:59
down with Giovani Cole Antonio where we
46:02
went through our top 30 games uh uh each
46:05
60 games in total a favorite of the
46:07
critical error nation
46:08
>> I think that was my favorite episode
46:09
we've done
46:09
>> yeah me too actually and I didn't
46:11
believe in it when we started and then
46:13
>> me too it was it was like one of those
46:14
like yeah we can do this and then as we
46:16
were going with it I was like oh this is
46:17
really Yeah,
46:18
>> we got a book club in there too for for
46:20
the two episodes of book club, I think.
46:22
Or was it three? It was just two.
46:23
>> Yeah.
46:24
>> Yeah. Uh and yeah, you can join that
46:26
patreon.com/critical error. I would love
46:28
to give a special shout out though to
46:30
the members of the Jake and Peter tier.
46:32
This is the highest tier on our Patreon.
46:35
I would like to say very a big thank you
46:37
to Andrew Bular, to Evan Snee, to Mitch
46:41
Dyer, to Robert Quesada, and to Joshua
46:45
Day. We've had a bunch of upgrading
46:46
members. We had a bunch of new members.
46:47
We've had actually a bunch of growth
46:49
over the past, I don't know, two, three
46:50
weeks here, and it's been really, really
46:52
cool. We've gotten a lot of great
46:53
feedback from people. We're really happy
46:54
to see new people joining our Discord
46:56
server, which is also available to
46:58
people who are part of the um the the
47:00
Patreon. It's it's been cool to see new
47:02
voices and see new discussions sort of
47:05
happening because I I just I really
47:06
value the way that um people in the
47:08
community are interested in actually
47:09
engaging with what we're talking about
47:10
and engaging with the work that we're
47:11
talking about as well.
47:12
>> Yeah, I completely agree. And uh each
47:15
and every week, of course, there is a
47:17
sound. Now, I know you you want to you
47:19
want to give a shout out to the uh
47:20
members of the Jake and Peter tier
47:23
before before we play the sound, but I
47:24
just want to say that here's a little
47:25
promise from me to you.
47:27
>> This week, I'm going to do a kind of
47:30
Zelda inspired sound. But but we must
47:34
remember this because in the future,
47:36
this sound will be remade
47:39
>> for when Yeah. No, no, this is good.
47:41
This is good. You can do this now. And
47:42
you remember you remember this remember
47:44
the qualities of this. Yeah. And then
47:46
this will be remade in the future maybe
47:49
uh at a higher degree of fidelity. Some
47:51
>> higher fidelity I think you know
47:53
improved animation.
47:54
>> Well, Right. Right. Right. So you got to
47:55
So just keep that in mind. But before we
47:57
get to that, our members of the Jake and
47:58
Peter tier, please.
48:01
>> Oh, I did. I I did read their names.
48:03
>> Oh, you did?
48:04
>> I did.
48:04
>> I'm so used to hearing them. I didn't
48:06
even I didn't even
48:07
>> I'll give it to you. Yeah. I mean, you
48:08
know, Andrew Carr, Evan Sne
48:11
upgrading, uh, Robert Quesada and Joshua
48:14
Day. Oh my goodness.
48:15
>> Wow. Okay,
48:16
>> that's a that's a twofer right there.
48:17
>> All right, let's let's play the the
48:18
Zelda sound.
48:19
>> Let's hear it.
48:20
>> Hey, listen.
48:22
>> Thank you to the following supporters on
48:24
patreon.com/critical.
48:26
Andrew Bulkar, Antel, Trait, Evans,
48:28
Snee, Mitch Dyer, Monero, Robert
48:30
Quesada, Joshua Day, Connor Trulo, Danny
48:34
Disaster, James Pierre, Reed, Jacob,
48:36
Richtor, Jared, Kuseno, Cold, Robin,
48:40
Greg, Cole, Koch, Chow, Shin, Panky,
48:44
Oats, Think Dick, Mystic, Alex, Sims,
48:46
Non-existent, Mkeley, Luis, Aceiva,
48:50
Robi, Taylor, Rio, and that's it, baby.
48:54
Jake, you got a written piece for us? I
48:56
do.
48:56
>> Every single week, one of us prepares a
48:58
written piece to read on the show. I'm
49:00
very excited to hear what you have had
49:02
to say this week.
49:03
>> I was originally going to write this
49:05
week's piece about my AYn Thor,
49:10
>> which is an extremely dangerous device
49:13
to place into the hands of a person like
49:15
me for the uninitiated. The Thor is an
49:17
Android emulation handheld designed in
49:19
the image of a Nintendo 3DS. A clamshell
49:22
little freak machine. Two screens, two
49:24
analog sticks. Powerful enough to carry
49:26
around several decades of video game
49:29
history in your back pocket. I am some
49:32
kind of deranged librarian.
49:36
I love it.
49:38
I've been playing Jump Ultimate Stars
49:41
most days. A DS fighting game built
49:43
around manga characters from Shonen
49:45
Jump. It never released in America,
49:47
which means nobody around me has any
49:49
opinions about it. Nobody is trying to
49:52
convince me that it secretly changed the
49:54
medium. Nobody is really posting
49:57
hour-long video essays titled Jump
50:00
Ultimate Stars is more relevant than
50:01
ever. The game exists in total peace. I
50:06
unlocked the Yuyu Hakasho world last
50:08
night. I got He Kurama and Yusuke within
50:12
the span of maybe 20 minutes. What an
50:15
evening. A better evening than many
50:18
supposedly important ones.
50:22
I think I am beginning to distrust
50:24
importance.
50:27
The older I get, the more suspicious I
50:29
become of any cultural atmosphere that
50:32
immediately demands a verdict from me.
50:36
Everything seems to arrive preloaded
50:39
with context.
50:40
Consensus forms before I even touch the
50:43
thing myself. I'm expected to approach
50:45
art already carrying the weight of its
50:47
discourse around my neck like one of
50:49
those cartoon chains attached to a
50:51
cannonball. Meanwhile, I'm lying on the
50:53
couch playing a 15-year-old fan
50:56
translation of a DS game where Bubba Bo
50:59
can fight Sasuke UI.
51:02
I booted up Star Fox 64 3D the other
51:06
night. I got a little emotional over the
51:10
bottom screen. The cockpit displays
51:12
beneath the action transforms the 3DS
51:15
into a tiny science fiction
51:17
communications device. You glance
51:19
downward, you see incoming chatter,
51:21
radar information, little gauges
51:23
flickering away. It's wonderfully
51:24
tactile. This thing understands that
51:26
fantasy lives in secondary details.
51:30
Dashboard lights, fake buttons, the
51:33
illusion that your hands are operating
51:35
machinery important enough to explode.
51:40
There's also some good voice acting.
51:43
Your dad helped me like that, too.
51:46
Yell's peppy hair.
51:49
People say lines in Star Fox with the
51:51
sincerity of community theater actors
51:54
moments before the set catches fire. It
51:57
is perfect. Every video game sounds
52:00
should sound a little bit ridiculous, I
52:02
think, a little bit embarrassing. I
52:05
think earnestness is really good for the
52:07
soul.
52:09
I started Project Exone 2 as well, which
52:12
appears to contain every fictional
52:14
character ever created arranged into a
52:16
deeply incomprehensible tactics RPG.
52:18
Half the time I do not know who anyone
52:20
on screen is. Somebody with giant anime
52:23
hair enters the scene and the game will
52:25
behave as though I should be applauding
52:27
on my feet. Fair enough. I stand. I am
52:29
figuring it out. I like figuring it out.
52:32
The pleasure of games is beginning to
52:34
live there for me. Not in the mastery or
52:37
in the acclam in the accumulation, but
52:40
the acclamation, learning the rhythm of
52:42
a thing until it reveals itself to me.
52:46
The Thor is also where I've been playing
52:48
uh Pokemon Gold for the Twitch book club
52:50
I'm running. Because the device syncs
52:52
its clock through the internet, the
52:53
game's real-time structure remains
52:55
intact. Morning arrives in Johto exactly
52:57
when morning arrives for me. Nightfalls
53:00
simultaneously across both of our
53:01
worlds. There is something to that. It's
53:04
keeping pace. It's working for me right
53:08
now. And I have loved this truly. I have
53:11
loved carrying these games around. I
53:13
love choosing between them depending on
53:14
my mood. I love spending 20 minutes with
53:16
one before drifting to another. The
53:18
whole experience feels detached from the
53:20
endless psychic landfill of release
53:22
schedules and reaction cycles and
53:24
prestige conversations. But if I'm being
53:26
honest, if I am being really, really
53:29
honest with you, I think I need to go
53:31
deeper. I do not think the ayn Thor I do
53:34
not think playing old games any of this
53:37
are really responsible for this feeling
53:40
because again to be really honest with
53:42
you I have been deeply happy with my
53:45
Nintendo Switch 2 Marvel Cosmic Invasion
53:48
just added Cyclops my favorite Marvel
53:50
superhero and I immediately transformed
53:52
back into the exact age where seeing
53:54
Cyclops shoot optic blasts across a
53:56
screen felt spiritually necessary to my
53:58
survival perfect tides station to ation
54:01
is wonderfully entertaining on the
54:03
Switch 2 small screen. Yoshi and the
54:05
Mysterious Book comes out tomorrow and
54:07
as of recording this I already know I am
54:10
going to be annoying about it. Even
54:12
stranger, my PS5 has been collecting
54:15
dust for most of the year. I had decided
54:17
that it represented a kind of
54:19
relationship to gaming that I wasn't
54:20
interested in right now. But then we
54:23
recorded our pon our bonus episode on
54:25
patreon.com/critical
54:26
error about our 30 favorite games. And
54:29
immediately afterwards, I reinstalled
54:31
Batman Arkham Knight, and it is [ __ ]
54:34
me up. This has triggered a full DC
54:38
Comics video game Spiral. I have
54:40
downloaded Gotham Knights. I have
54:41
downloaded Suicide Squad. I texted
54:43
Abram, guest of the last podcast, trying
54:46
to convince him to buy Suicide Squad so
54:47
that we could play together. He did.
54:49
I've even been playing the new Lego
54:51
Batman game and having a wonderful time
54:53
with it. And listen, these games are not
54:56
all masterpieces. Gotham Nights. The
54:59
mission structure. What are we doing?
55:01
Suicide Squad. It's messy. It's
55:03
overextended. The Lego games. Are these
55:06
just jangling keys for hours and hours?
55:09
Who knows? I know because I know what
55:11
the term continuity reboot means. This
55:14
is for me. Who cares? Who cares?
55:17
Seriously, I like driving through Gotham
55:20
while rain streaks across the pavement.
55:22
I like hearing Nightwing talk. I like
55:24
guiding towards meaningless side
55:25
activities after work while Chip sleeps
55:28
next to me on the couch. And I like
55:30
feeling the a game accompany me during
55:33
the evening instead of auditioning for a
55:36
museum in my mind. There is a Jewish
55:39
phrase that I've been thinking about a
55:40
lot lately. Ayintova, looking with your
55:43
good eye. The idea is simple. You train
55:45
yourself to notice what is beautiful
55:47
before your brain rushes in to take
55:50
inventory of defects. You look for what
55:53
is alive. You look generously. You look
55:56
for what is trying. This applies to art
55:58
and it applies to people and it applies
56:00
to our whole lives. Sarah, while I was
56:02
playing one of these games, dropped a
56:05
mug in our kitchen and it shattered all
56:07
over the floor. She looked devastated.
56:09
Not because the mug mattered that much,
56:11
but because she is a gentle person who
56:14
create who hates creating inconvenience
56:16
for anyone else. And I remember looking
56:18
at her standing there in PJs, surrounded
56:20
by broken ceramic, feeling overwhelmed
56:23
by affection.
56:25
Our kitchen was beautiful to me. The
56:28
mess was beautiful to me. My wife
56:30
apologizing while Chip nervously
56:32
inspected the shards was beautiful to me
56:35
because this is it. This is the whole
56:37
thing. I have it. The life I wanted.
56:42
Looking with your good eye has the power
56:45
to change the world.
56:47
And it makes you easier to live with,
56:49
easier to surprise, and easier to love.
56:53
I think a lot of our lives, modern life,
56:56
trains the opposite instinct into us. We
57:00
are encouraged to approach everything
57:02
like a suspicious consumer. Every movie,
57:05
a conversation, a referendum online,
57:07
every game, a discourse, battlefield,
57:10
every relationship, even evaluated
57:14
through the language of optimization and
57:16
boundaries and efficiency, until
57:18
eventually you are just left standing
57:20
alone in a perfectly organized room,
57:22
incapable of enjoying a single thing
57:24
inside of it. That sounds terrible to
57:27
me. I would rather play Star Fox 64. I
57:31
would rather get excited unlocking Yuyu
57:34
Hakusho characters in that DS game
57:36
nobody cares about. I would rather play
57:38
mediocre Batman games with my friends or
57:41
sit on the couch beside my wife at the
57:43
end of the night hearing the music to
57:45
Pokemon Gold hum softly out of a little
57:48
handheld while Chip snores between us.
57:52
Turns out this stuff is not that small
57:54
at all. Thank you.
57:58
>> Delightful, Jake. delightful. I would
58:02
like to make a few notes here.
58:03
>> Okay. Please.
58:04
>> Not notes. I would like to to add some
58:06
things here.
58:07
>> Yep.
58:07
>> Thing number one, after we talked about
58:09
it on our bonus episode from this past
58:12
week,
58:12
>> Yes.
58:12
>> You and I did play Gotham Nights.
58:14
>> Yeah, we played online. Yeah,
58:16
>> we played online.
58:16
>> Uhhuh.
58:17
>> Uh we played that uh what was that mode
58:20
even called?
58:21
>> Heroic Assault. Not the best name.
58:24
Heroic Assault, which was like a
58:27
kind of a It wasn't a rog like that's
58:29
completely not what it was.
58:31
>> It's a tower climb.
58:32
>> Yeah. Kind of like a missionbased tower.
58:34
>> Yeah. I mean, we had such a good time
58:36
that I had made plans to play that with
58:38
somebody else and never talked messaged
58:39
them about it.
58:41
>> That's awesome.
58:43
Um, we had a good time.
58:45
>> Uhhuh.
58:47
>> I would also be interested in
58:48
downloading if you got Abram on board
58:50
downloading Suicide Squad.
58:52
>> I bought the game. It's it's in the
58:54
mail.
58:55
>> Then you just you let me know when
58:56
that's happening.
58:57
>> Great.
58:57
>> Because I believe I have a copy of it
59:00
>> uh from a digital copy of it. I would I
59:02
would certainly play it at the very
59:04
least to see what's up. And I think it'
59:06
be a good time uh with friends.
59:08
>> Yeah.
59:09
>> I would also like to say
59:12
I love the idea of thinking about like
59:15
trying to identify oh this is an
59:16
important game
59:18
>> and how little that matters really at
59:21
all. Yes.
59:22
>> I think you what you identify here is is
59:23
like these things that actually maybe
59:25
aren't important
59:28
>> are.
59:28
>> Yeah.
59:29
>> And the things that everyone says are
59:30
important might not be. And there's
59:33
nothing wrong with that. What I like is
59:35
is the way you talk about Sarah breaking
59:37
this glass at the end because it sort of
59:39
juxtaposes and and I think is not
59:41
juxaposes but like you can compare it to
59:44
what you're talking about at the
59:45
beginning.
59:47
She thinks that order and gentleness is
59:49
probably important, but at the end of
59:50
the day, who cares? I, you know, and
59:52
that's not that's not to dismiss her
59:55
feelings on it and whatever else, but
59:56
it's it's to be real about your own
59:58
feelings about like maybe that thing
1:00:00
that everyone values just doesn't matter
1:00:02
that much cuz I just like what we have.
1:00:04
And I like that a lot. Again, that's not
1:00:06
to dismiss how she feels about it and
1:00:07
whatever and not wanting to break a
1:00:09
glass and everything, but um yeah, I
1:00:11
thought this was I thought this was
1:00:12
quite sweet.
1:00:13
>> Thanks. It was um I think uh
1:00:17
>> it was just funny having this experience
1:00:19
of you know like what's a really popular
1:00:21
YouTube video is like I replaced so and
1:00:24
so with handheld gaming with old
1:00:26
handheld gaming.
1:00:27
>> Oh I've seen this. Yeah.
1:00:29
And I was thinking about this and that's
1:00:31
kind of where I started being like,
1:00:34
"Yeah, I'm really enjoying my little my
1:00:36
little device here with my games." And
1:00:38
um
1:00:40
but then I had to go deeper and I had to
1:00:42
be like, "But wait, I'm also really
1:00:43
enjoying all these new games. I just
1:00:44
loved Pragmat. I just I'm loving Lego
1:00:46
Batman on my PS5." And I'm just like
1:00:49
liking stuff lately. And and it's funny.
1:00:52
It's like I I I get this comment in uh
1:00:55
on my stream sometimes where they're
1:00:56
like, "Oh man, you're so critical. you
1:00:58
read into games, blah blah blah. Do you
1:01:00
ever just enjoy anything? And I think
1:01:01
about that comment and I laugh sometimes
1:01:03
because I because like I feel like I'm
1:01:05
in this place right now where I'm just
1:01:07
looking at everything with my good eye
1:01:09
and I'm and I'm ready.
1:01:11
>> I do really like that. I I I do
1:01:14
>> I've been personally working on the idea
1:01:16
of like trying to just be more generous
1:01:17
to people and and whatever else. I think
1:01:19
we this was a few weeks ago. you and I
1:01:20
were talking about like I read a tweet
1:01:22
from someone who I like quite a bit that
1:01:24
I thought uh that I disagreed with in
1:01:26
like on a fundamental level and then I
1:01:30
had this feeling where I was like I'm
1:01:31
actually this person's probably means
1:01:34
more than this one 280 whatever
1:01:37
character tweet about it and they're
1:01:40
probably talking about something that is
1:01:42
more than the thing they're quote
1:01:44
tweeting and they probably have a whole
1:01:45
background on this and it's so easy
1:01:47
right to just look at something and be
1:01:48
like ungenerous or mad or whatever. But
1:01:52
I've been really working on trying to
1:01:54
just be more generous to people and just
1:01:55
say like, you know what, I think you
1:01:57
probably mean like I think there's
1:01:58
probably more to this. And so why like
1:02:00
why should I even begin to assume that I
1:02:02
know what you're talking about when I'm
1:02:04
just getting this small small snapshot.
1:02:06
I think it's healthy. I think it's
1:02:07
really healthy to to be able to just say
1:02:10
if we were in person, maybe we'd talk
1:02:11
about this more, but we're not. So why
1:02:13
why should I pretend like we are? M and
1:02:16
I think something that's important to me
1:02:18
is this idea of like how people have
1:02:21
decided so much is is already important
1:02:24
like
1:02:24
>> Yeah.
1:02:25
>> And I think that like as a as a critic
1:02:28
something that I that I try to do is
1:02:32
make my perspectives and my takes like
1:02:34
weighty. I try to I think in in writing
1:02:36
you have to have a boldness to your
1:02:38
writing. And I think a lot of the times
1:02:40
that can appear like ego and I and I'm
1:02:42
okay with that. But I think like outside
1:02:45
of my criticism, something that I think
1:02:47
might help my criticism be perceived
1:02:49
more generously is if outside of there
1:02:52
was a delineation between just like us
1:02:55
enjoying stuff as people and us writing
1:02:58
about things as critics. Like sometimes
1:03:00
I I I just think we're all like a little
1:03:02
too attached and serious about our
1:03:05
personal verdicts about video games in a
1:03:08
way that's like
1:03:10
>> that like starts and ends at whether or
1:03:11
not you like it rather than what you can
1:03:13
teach me or bring me into. Yes.
1:03:16
>> And if you're takeown of a game or
1:03:19
whatever ends at you just kind of
1:03:23
breaking down the game, but it doesn't
1:03:25
teach me anything about yourself and
1:03:27
your life. I'm not I'm suddenly not that
1:03:29
interested anymore. And and there
1:03:31
there's like this practice I see by
1:03:33
people who are, you know, super fans or
1:03:35
enthusiasts about games of the like
1:03:41
I like I feel like it maybe wouldn't be
1:03:43
out of the question to ask somebody in
1:03:46
games to make like a tier list of their
1:03:48
of like a hundred games.
1:03:50
>> And you and I notably when we did our
1:03:52
our top 30, we did not order those
1:03:55
lists.
1:03:55
>> No. And we also were like this is what
1:03:58
it is today,
1:03:59
>> right? Is living. It's it's not Yeah.
1:04:01
>> And immediately after presenting those
1:04:03
lists, both you and I were drawn to
1:04:06
revisit almost to check and to see
1:04:10
>> I did some checking. I did
1:04:12
>> and I and I wish we had adopted this
1:04:14
this like your life is different, your
1:04:16
needs are different, how something might
1:04:18
hit you is completely different. This
1:04:20
this Yeah. I just I see more and more
1:04:23
people are so attached to like their
1:04:26
takes and how their their verdicts and
1:04:29
their their kind of like cannon of
1:04:30
things in their heads and I wish that
1:04:33
it's like but what if you looked at it
1:04:35
with your generous eye?
1:04:36
>> Yeah.
1:04:36
>> You know. Yeah. So that's it.
1:04:38
>> I do. I like that a lot. I like that
1:04:40
that concept a lot. Um
1:04:41
>> so thank you for sharing.
1:04:42
>> Yeah.
1:04:43
>> And uh thank you
1:04:46
>> for listening. Would love to know what
1:04:48
you think about uh what we talked about
1:04:49
this episode in the comments. I I am
1:04:51
really genu genuinely interested in what
1:04:54
people think about this whole like
1:04:55
spiritual successor thing and and how
1:04:57
that could potentially apply to other
1:04:59
mediums, whatever. But you can also find
1:05:01
us for more on patreon.com/critical
1:05:04
error. By up gets you at this point,
1:05:08
what a year almost a year's worth of
1:05:11
bonus episodes. I think that's kind of
1:05:13
neat. Personally, I think there's a lot
1:05:15
of good stuff in there. I think in the
1:05:16
Ocarina of Time remake, they should make
1:05:18
Tingle like insanely hot because that's
1:05:21
the only way you could generate like an
1:05:24
authentic like you you're supposed to
1:05:26
see see Tingle and be like, "Whoa,
1:05:28
weird. What a little what a little
1:05:30
weirdo." And I think if he was I think
1:05:31
if he was like really sexy, you would it
1:05:34
would it would inspire something that
1:05:36
would make a lot of sense for that game.
1:05:39
>> Absolutely agree.