/vr/ - Retro Games

I guess the same reason your mom didn't cancel you when her pregnancy test was first revealed

We get it, you watch ecelebs.

>>8257292
paranoia over youtubers is the first or second reply to every thread

>>8257292
>youtuber has opinion
>now nobody else is allowed to have that opinion or else it is wrong and bad because "youtuber"
rent free

>>8257292
>nobody could come up with the opinion "Sonic X-Treme looks like it would have been bad" without being influenced by le Youtuber boogeyman

>>8257298
If only these people could articulate their opinion in a form not reminiscent of a eceleb it wouldn't be bad. The truth is most people only know about this from ecelebs to begin with.

>>8257351
I learned a lot about the NES from watching AVGN in 2006. Stop being a gatekeeping faggot.

>>8257374
The only faggot here is you.

>>8257374
Which is why you are a poser faggot.

>>8257374
kill yourself

>>8257375
>>8257378
>>8257382
Please don't retards.

>>8257374
>I learned a lot about the NES from watching AVGN in 2006.
heh

>>8257374

As much as it's a really cool historical relic, I can't say much about it ever looked fun. It's "neat" like a screensaver, but you'd probably want to stop playing pretty quickly.

>>8257282
I would have loved to try it.

Game would’ve likely not been fun but I’d still have liked to at least give it a shot

>>8257282
I think there's a lot of politics that are hard to understand in retrospect. Sonic didn't even pop up until halfway through the Genesis's life, and it was relatively more successful outside of Japan than domestically. It made sense to continue to try because Sonic was still a pretty fresh success for Sega.
>>8257374
Good response.

>>8257351
>you're not a REAL fan, you learned about it from (source that I don't like)
lmao
seethe

looks good to me

>>8257436
You didn't learn anything outside parroting opinions.

There are two types people
1.Eceleb worshipers that didn't play the game and only seen it on youtube and copied their idols opinion on it(said idol also build his stance on a clip of the game)
2.Normal people that see Xtreme and think "I would give it a chance to see if it's bad if I had the chance. Until then I am neutral"
It's as simple as that.

Should not have been canceled, but moving it to pc for a western audience would have been the best option.

>>8257436
>learned
sure you did

>>8257292
so, OP is a fag who thinks SM64 automatically invalidates all other platform games in development from before it
but when it comes down to it, the fisheye was a stupid idea and at no point did the level design in any of the videos come together in a way that looked like it was fun to play
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6kdd8ZVf3g
like, look at it
tons of spots that seem like they only work because the person who designed the levels was playing and otherwise you'd fly off into the abyss
it's very dreamy and wild and cool to look at, but it looks rough as all hell

>>8257705
This

>>8257374
Based bait

>>8257282
has any game used this fisheye/5 point perspective? I don't know if it would really work but at least it looks kinda cool

>>8257436
based

It's okay to learn about things from YouTubers or television shows or podcasts or TikTok or whatever else.

The problem comes in when it's obvious that you're just following whatever they said about it without actually experiencing it for yourself first. Even then, simple things like "this game is bad" isn't something worth accusing someone of blindingly following someone for, they need to make the same points (e.g. if someone was talking about Castlevania 2 and they complained about 'empty castles' and 'it taking a long time to turn from day to night' and 'you gotta crouch down with a stone to make a tornado' that would make it pretty clear they only watched the AVGN video and nothing else)

And let's be honest, a lot of people use YouTube. I'm 27 and I've had it as my primary source of entertainment for the last 12 years. You're not going to be able to stop people from watching YouTube videos and being influenced by them to take an interest in things you like.

>>8257324
It's shit like this that's why discussion always devolves here. It's more often that you see people accusing others of having their opinions motivated by zoomers, Youtubers, or streamers than you actually have people here who come in saying something while not thinking for themselves. And when this is the case, they're usually just making a thread with a mindless starter. (i.e. [insert game] "what went wrong?")

>>8258484

I don't know. I like what they were going for, with the fisheye lens. Something Mario Galaxy would use later. But I look at those stages, and they seem really constrictive, and Sonic is awkwardly platforming. It looks rough.

They knew it was shit because SM64 was shit.
Only after fucking nugamers forced them into 3d Sonic shit with Adventure did Sega give that trash a genuine try.

>>8258484
They unironically showed this to people at E3
https://youtu.be/qdBKq7o6RTE
This is one of the most embarrassing promo videos for a game of all time

>>8257705
No one played Sonic Xtreme though. It never came out.

>>8259246
That's the point, they're trying to make any criticism of the game invalid.

>>8257351
you have to be watching youtubers and cataloguing their opinions in the first place to even notice that crap. i've been accused of "getting my opinions from e-celebs" over things i've thought since the 90s

>>8259254
We can't say it looked at best awkward to play, when that's clearly what it looks like?

>>8257282
True, if you’ve played Bug! You’ve played this game
Thankfully there are many better games on the Saturn

>>8258484
There's no way it would look anything close to that on an actual Saturn.

>>8257292
>>8257293
The whole "if a YouTuber has talked about it then it's wrong and bad" sentiment that so much of 4chan (not just /vr/) has is wild to me, it's like people who think they're superior to zoomers because they refuse to download TikTok.

>>8260314
It also exposes the fact that you watch Youtubers, and are aware of the things they say.

>>8257374
I hate that AVGN is considered informational/educational by so many people. He's parroted things that are demonstrably false, like the whole "iD software gave Wisdom Tree the source code for Wolfenstein 3D because they were mad at Nintendo" thing, completely false but because he said it people continue to perpetuate the lie. AVGN should be about watching this out of touch and jaded alcoholic old man get mad at shitty games while he attempts and fails to recapture a bit of the happiness he felt when he was a child playing Nintendo. Trying to use his videos to educate is a disservice to both his art and his audience.

>>8260325
>Trying to use his videos to educate is a disservice to both his art and his audience.
AVGN's style has educational aspects to it what with the storytime tone he often takes when explaining game history as context for the episode. He also made loads of games more popular/talked about in the years after he covered them.

>>8257292
anon you literally just admitted to wathcing ecelelbs if you think OP is referring to one.

>>8260331
That's what I mean, he didn't adopt that "story time" shit until later on. Look at his earlier reviews like Karate Kid, TMNT, or McKids. He doesn't try to tell you about the history or development of the game. Even in later reviews, the best ones are episodes where he provides context for something usually rooted in his personal history (I was obsessed with Dick Tracy and dressed up like him for Halloween, I had to go all over town to find Godzilla movies on VHS tapes, etc) without trying to provide some sort of video game history lecture. His videos could be so much better if he focused on the humor that comes from the character, trying to educate is not his job.

>>8257282
It's fascinating and I hope more builds leak, but I can't see this game surpassing Adventure in any way.

It could have been as good as crash bandicoot

>>8260847
there's literally no way

>>8257292
holy kek, all the seethe from meta-era fags

>>8260889
I don't even understand what you mean by that.

>>8257374
I didn't go to NES school, I went to NES.

>>8260889
>>8260460

>>8257705
3. people with functioning eyes and brain who can recognize a horrible premise immediately

>>8261808
>obvious bait post is made nearly every thread
>without fail there will be a dozen retards that take the bait
You are mad because you got called out. OP does reek of some prepackaged, non-nuanced hot take that some eceleb on YT or twitter made. Even if you do agree that Xtreme probably would have been shit (I do as well), that doesn't excuse the shitpost-tier thread.

>>8258507
literally all games with an fov slider

>>8259080
>I'm 27 and I've had it as my primary source of entertainment for the last 12 years
I'm sorry.

>>8258484
>otherwise you'd fly off into the abyss
Is it possible to fall off? Maybe there were invisible walls on all the platform edges

The one major thing I got from preview videos from when Xtreme was in development is that everyone covering the game was more impressed with the fucking boss engine than the main game.
Think about that. It's like if people who picked up the previews for Mario 64 were more impressed with fighting king bob-omb over exploring the castle. It's a big sign of failure imo.

>>8261845
"Called out" for watching "e-celebs" as if that even means anything.
Assuming someone did learn about Sonic Xtreme through Youtube, the implication is what? People should never watch anything on Youtube, and information gained through Youtube is invalid? Why?

>>8261845
>non-nuanced hot take
What isn't nuanced about it? Sonic Xtreme looks like a joke next to Mario 64 even in its earliest form. It would be like premiering your great new album on 8 track.

>>8257292
Based af. Eceleb drones will seethe forever

>>8257436
Go back to /v/ faggot

>>8262509
>"Called out" for watching "e-celebs" as if that even means anything.
Not him, but yes yhat means something. That OP can't form his opinions by itself. He have to repeat what other people said like a parrot.

>>8257436
based

>>8257292
Name one eceleb who has said "they should have cancelled Sonic X-treme after Super Mario 64 was first revealed". Who is the mysterious eceleb who popularized this take?

>>8262592
>hur dur based
Go back to /v/

>>8262625
yikes, cringe

>>8262594
Most e-celebs like to shit on obscure games just because they are obscure. The same for cancelled games.

>>8257292
You are too based for this board anon. Unfortunately /vr/ was taken by stupid zoomers and most of them can't even think by themselves,They need an Youtuber to form their "opinions".

>>8262631
So we're literally stooping to "any criticism of an obscure game must be invalid because of some unspecified eceleb"

>>8262639
If you are criticizing it just because it's obscure, yes, it's irrational thinking.

>>8262653
You're just pointing to your headcanon for why OP made the post and pretending it's real.

>>8262591
That's just an utterly retarded thing to say. You see images of Sonic Xstreme in a magazine in the 90's, and conclude it looks great, and you're a free thinker, but you see footage of Sonic Xstreme on Youtube in 2020, and conclude it looks kind of shit, and suddenly you're just a parrot?

>>8262631
That's not true at all. There's a whole side of Youtube that is just people singing the praises of strange obscure things. You're just butthurt that someone else thinks Sonic Xstreme looks bad, because you have some kind of emotional connection to the idea of the game.

>>8262653
Also, no Sonic game is obscure. Even ones that didn't come out. And people aren't criticizing it for being "obscure". You made that up.

>>8261845
>>without fail there will be a dozen retards that take the bait
>You are mad because you got called out.
except he didn't say "look at all of these people who bit the bait", he said "holy kek all the seethe from [nonsensical insult]"

>>8262636
>You are too based for this board anon.
I have an extremely hard time believing that people who type up sentences like this are not "zoomers" themselves.

>>8262631
Not true.
>>8262653
No one does this.

>>8262631
>>8262639
Retards like to think that criticising everything makes them look intelligent.

>>8257282
>>8257291
>>8257292
>>8257293
>>8257298
>>8257324
>>8257351
>>8257374
>>8257375
>>8257378
>>8257382
>>8257384
>>8257397
>>8257405
>>8257408
>>8257410
>>8257418
>>8257429
>>8257436
>>8257469
>>8257691
>>8257705
>>8258081
>>8258152
>>8258484
>>8258490
>>8258491
>>8258507
>>8259063
>>8259080
>>8259082
>>8259124
>>8259148
>>8259154
>>8259246
>>8259254
>>8259257
>>8259260
>>8259301
>>8259762
>>8260314
>>8260316
>>8260325
>>8260331
>>8260357
>>8260450
>>8260827
>>8260847
>>8260856
>>8260889
>>8261000
>>8261783
>>8261808
>>8261809
>>8261845
>>8261875
>>8261963
>>8261973
>>8262005
>>8262509
>>8262574
>>8262583
>>8262586
>>8262591
>>8262592
>>8262594
>>8262625
>>8262628
>>8262631
>>8262636
>>8262639
>>8262653
>>8262658
>>8262764
>>8262767
>>8262768
>>8262782
>>8262785
>>8262789
>>8262815
I will get my opinions from YouTube.
You will keep hearing me repeating them.
You will like it.
There is no other option.

>>8262815
Like retards pretending they don't watch Youtube videos, and that makes them intelligent.

>>8257292
Based

>anon A: I think game is bad
>anon B: lol nice opinion parroted from ecelebs, fag

This entire thread

>>8262636
Let me guess, this happened right when moot allowed fucking Gaycube era shit in here?

Fuck this site, this is a boomer board because /v/ is poltard/coomer cancer. Keep these fucking children out of this holy ground where actual video game discussion is allowed to happen.

>>8259154
Christ that's awful. It looks like a slightly faster version of Bug.

>>8264056
>when moot
Please be bait.

>>8264056
I genuinely can't tell how many layers of stupid you're on.
If it's bait, it's pretty stupid bait, and if you're serious, I'm sorry for your loss.

>>8264198
Why did you delete your first post, needed to vent out more seething with more layers of wordswordswords?

>>8264218
I didn't delete any posts.

>>8262574
>What isn't nuanced about it?
>hurr let's stop developing our game because a 3D mario game that would be guaranteed to sell like hot cakes regardless was revealed for a different console
>>8262782
Same difference. For you to have bit the bait you would have to be concerned about the contents of the bait. 6+ people getting mad someone suggested the thread topic is artificial YTuber shit every time is probably indicative of a eceleb shitter problem.
>>8262764
No it's the fact that your reasoning is the most braindead, simplistic, 240-character-limit way of thinking it's shit.

>>8264429
It was literally Bug! With high fov
Why would anyone want that?
They should’ve made a game with the guardian heroes engine and make a 3 lane sonic game that had different paths that crossed over at point in the stage

>>8264682
Meant for OP >>8257282

>>8264056
>implying
>muh crt thread
>muh doom thread
>muh jarpigs bad thread
>bonus round! Trashure hate thread
>CRT thread
>occasional genuine thread met with 18 different ZOOM ZOOM replies
whoah some nice board you've got there
Not even poltards dare to come here to shit it up.

>>8264429
>>hurr let's stop developing our game because a 3D mario game that would be guaranteed to sell like hot cakes regardless was revealed for a different console
Can you talk to anyone without using some kind of strawman?
>>8265218
>Not even poltards dare to come here to shit it up.
How could anyone say this unironically

>>8257384
They're right about you, though. Blindly adopting screen creature's salty/cringe opinions about certain NES games is not learning about the NES.

>>8265252
paraphrasing what OP said in a mocking way =/= strawmanning
That is basically what he said; that Xtreme should be cancelled just because SM64 was revealed.

The sexual tension is palpable in this thread

>>8258490
This

>>8265593
>That is basically what he said; that Xtreme should be cancelled just because SM64 was revealed.
What's with the "because a 3D mario game that would be guaranteed to sell like hot cakes regardless" part? I just want to know why you put that part in specifically. What does it mean?

>>8264429
How many characters do I need to think in before I'm allowed to have a negative opinion on Sonic Xstreme?

>>8265579
You have to learn about things somewhere. In my case, I often learn about games through internet personalities, and then play them. If that's "not allowed", how would you suggest I do this? Collect gaming magazines from the 80's and 90's? They'd be influencing my opinions on some subtle level too, wouldn't they? Should I just download complete romsets, and painstaking play through all of the shovelware, like I'm sure you never did?

>>8257705
>>8258484
The game looks like shit and I don't need to play it to have that opinion. Fisheye lens means automatic trash.

>>8266317
>doesn't even played the game
>huur duur it's shit
kys

>>8262767
>. There's a whole side of Youtube that is just people singing the praises of strange obscure things
Hahahahaha nice joke anon

Abhorrent thread. /vr/ was a mistake.

>>8266320
>you have to play a game to be able to judge it when there is a considable amount of footage from various stages of development and they all look like shit
this is just cope

>>8266320
Did I say the game's shit? I said it looks like shit you inbred.

>>8257291
kek

>>8257282
It probably would have been fun, or at least interesting if it was finished and polished (friendly reminder that you're looking at an alpha product), but honestly I wish Sega had just concentrated on either releasing a solid 2.5d Sonic game, or turned Sonic World into a full fledged Sonic Adventure style game instead of wasting time with weird fisheye shit and retarded corporate infighting.

>>8266356
This could have been a thread about cancelled games, but no

>>8266329
There is. Your understanding of Youtube seems to be AVGN, and that's about it.

>>8266320
>doesn't even played the game
>it would have been great if it came out though!
It's exactly the same attitude.

>>8266356
Blame the retard who started screaming about ecelebs and zoomers for no reason. When you drag a subject like that in here, you're not "safeguarding" the board, you're shitting on it, and now we're going to keep having this argument, until you all learn.

>>8260314
Legitimate answer: It's all Gen X'ers. They were all around for the super early days of the internet, while also just being old enough for boomers to pass on their values. They still carry around with them some bias and preconceived notions borne from those times. Such as:
>Any software or service should be completely free
>Entertainment should be free
>Direct downloads are preferable
>IRC, mumble, vent, etc, are all preferable to the "bloat" of Skype and Discord.
And most importantly
>People on the internet are not real people, everything is done by nerds in their basement with a webcam. Nobody has good production values or agencies behind them. They are e-Celebs, not real celebs like people on TV.

A lot of them are still grappling with these ideas even today.

t. Gen X'er

>>8266449
>everything is done by nerds in their basement with a webcam
Those are the good ones, to be fair. Stuff with "good production" may as well just be TV, and often is owned by some kind of soulless production company.

>>8266449
>everything is done by nerds in their basement with a webcam
If only such a thing was true. We are living in times where AVGN needs scripts written by a production company to give his opinion on low budget movies he throughout his whole career said are his passion. E-celebs are below TV celebrities, they are trash, human garbage with no dignity. /tv/ laughs at stars doing TV commercials to sustain themselves but the things e-celebs been doing for the past decade are only worthy of only contempt.

>>8266510
The problem is that an "e-celeb" is kind of a hard thing to pin down. Are we talking about legitimate superstars like Pewdiepie, or just people who make videos on the internet, and have a modest at best audience? My favourite channels in recent years are probably Kenny Lauderdale, Nerrel, and Don Jolly, but I don't really consider those e-celebs, I consider them people on the internet. Forum posters with video editing software, really.

>>8266536
You'd be surprised how even the smallest of channels with the most modest subscriber counts is written or directed by a production company. The difference between TV and e-celebs is that on TV the production company is always credited while on the internet it's hidden and obscured to create the illusion of a independent user.

>>8266510
At some point, you are going to have to face the realization that "eCelebs" are just "Celebs" now.

Also, TV is dying and people on the internet legitimately have higher celebrity status then they do.

>>8266547
I'd say that probably depends on what your idea of a small channel is. If it's OneyPlays, then yeah, no, someone's running that. I'd be seriously surprised if the people I listed are back by production companies though, largely because they hardly update, and talk about niche, or often legally grey subjects.

>>8257293
>>8257298
>>8257324
>>8260357
>>8261808
the smell of zoomer scumbag/s here is astonishing. you can tell you are surrounded with these kids because they are incapable of coherential response, since they haven't the mental capability to give a comeback (and sadly they will never gonna have such mental capability) to such simple words that trigger them beyond what their poor little pea brains can handle...

Or either it's just OP (also a zoomer faggot Eceleb watcher) samefagging and shitposting since the beginning because got assruined to be called out.

>>8260314
Ok TikTok User

>8266862
>Or either it's just OP (also a zoomer faggot Eceleb watcher) samefagging and shitposting since the beginning because got assruined to be called out
doesn’t that just mean you’re a stupid retard who’s fighting with a troll to fulfill a sense of personal righteousness?

>>8266449
Based gen X'ers

>>8266374
Are you retarded or what? You can't judge without playing it, that's basic common basic sense.

Also go back to /v/

>>8266424
E-celebs are not the same as obscure channel with 30 subscribers

>>8266862

>>8259260
>We can't say it looked at best awkward to play, when that's clearly what it looks like?
It just looks like Bug! with a fisheye lens, which isn't really awkward just slightly clunky.

>>8267078
Just the fact that Bug! isn't doing the fisheye lens, or the high speed Sonic thing makes it look a look less awkward.

>>8266862
>youtube bad because...

>>8257282
This game would've looked dated in 1995, let alone 96. The same year Super Mario 64 came out.
It looks like the Saturn just wasn't capable of handling a fully 3D Sonic game.

>>8266862
This.

>>8267495
>This game would've looked dated in 1995, let alone 96.
loool it's so obvious you are a zoomer anon

Do Sonicfags really spend all day on Youtube looking up who doesn't like their games then accuse others of being Youtube watchers?

>>8266536
>My favourite channels in recent years are probably Kenny Lauderdale
Kenny's so based youtube demonetized him with zero strikes. I feel bad for the guy.

>>8269164
I genuinely just think Youtube are striking out against good content, because they want to filter everyone into watching their "premium" channels at this point. It's going to get harder and harder to just be a guy making videos on youtube in the coming years, unless you're one of their partners. Google want the Youtube branding, but they don't actually want Youtube, they want Netflix.

>>8269150
There's at least one guy, and he's fucking everywhere on this site these days.

>>8266862
OP here I was these two >>8257293 >>8257324

>>8267416
Youtube is populated with the same sort of faggots who blog on Facebook, and that includes both the commenters and video uploaders.

>>8269878
>dude, there are people on the internet

>>8257282
>it would have been shit lmao
Well, unfortunately, none of us have a finished product to figure out whether or not it was worth the development time. I'd be more accepting of this if we did have a finished product. Since we just have a prototype, it's going to suck.
>why didnt they just cancel it after sm64 was first revealed
It was an era of 3D experimentation, and SM64's very own presentation was... Well, it wasn't good when it was first revealed. Space World Super Mario 64 is often described as having loose, unresponsive controls, and really weird slowdowns.
>they must have known for a fact they couldnt compete
Then there was the chance for Sega to get something good out of this that could actually compete with SM64 anyways. Not only was SM64's first reveal kind of bad, but they were on the path to complete a decent enough game. Had it not been for infighting, we could've had many things, including a completed Xtreme. We also have a version of Xtreme that lacks the fisheye lens, but I prefer the lens because it's a unique look. I'd probably feel differently if I got to play the game though.
>all of the dev time after that point was a total waste of time and money
I beg to differ, because this was the era of experimentation. If they didn't do this, then they wouldn't know if it would not work, or more interestingly, potentially even work. Given the most complete build I've seen, I'm actually quite a fan of this idea, and would love to have seen it completed.

>>8269169
I wonder how long it took you to realize that Youtube has corporatized with the rest of the major internet?

>>8269970
You mean when Google bought them, like ten years ago?

>>8269976
... Jesus it's approaching 20 years since that happened... (2006.)
Ahem, not really. It actually kept itself intact for a good 8 years before it finally started to die. Cosmic Panda was when it began to feel obvious in hindsight, but even then it felt fine and they weren't trying to "actively" hide anyone except the occasional person like AVGN(and even then it was nothing like suppression, it was just putting someone in the front page more consistently then him. AVGN still appeared in the recommended just fine.)
Even when they removed the majority of channel customization, it felt OKAY, but obviously there was something going wrong. Shortly after they removed channel customization is when everything truly went down hill.
I want to point out I don't mean "corporatized" as in "oh it's got a monopoly feel to it", I'm talking about THAT feel. The feeling of a company that doesn't practice capitalism, but rather corporatism. The one where everything is done by a corporate playbook. The one that any company that gets increasingly political for their own gains has. The one that sneers at creativity, and bores you to death. That feeling.

>>8270018
Maybe we shouldn't get too deeply into this here, but I think it's pretty clear that some of the budding political sub-cultures that were taking form on the site had them scared, and then they opted to completely bind their users hands and feet. This even leads to things like small gaming channels getting shit on, just because when there's that kind of decentralisation of entertainment, there's a liability. Something that starts as a small community of Alex Kidd enthusiasts could become something else altogether, once people get talking without the right kinds of moderators being there to steer the conversation in a safe direction.

>>8270081
Yeah I get what you mean. Still is frustrating to witness and know I can't do anything about it.
The corporatization thing really took off thanks to the first adpocalypse, but it was visible even in 2015 and 2016.

>>8270018
That's not what corporatism means, retard

>>8271427
There are too many definitions of corporatism. I've taken up the definition of a company that refuses to look past the corporate playbook, viewing it as the defacto guidelines. Any deviation from the guidelines, including any creativity, is to be rejected at once, while promotions to yes men are a guarantee.

>>8271450
That is not a definition of the word in any sense. You can't just using your own made up definition as if it's an accepted or understood one.

>>8271459
Anyone at my college and anyone in my friend group quickly understands what I'm referring to when I say it, and my friends are the ones who have taught me that definition.
It's a lesser accepted definition, but it's still an accepted one.
I'm not going to argue on this, so what word would you put forward to describe what I just suggested?

>>8269948
>Not only was SM64's first reveal kind of bad
it wasn't
>Super Mario 64 is often described as having loose, unresponsive controls, and really weird slowdowns.
this doesn't mean it was a bad reveal
nice attempt at rewriting history though

>>8271463
>what I just suggested?
My brain died while rewriting that section, kind of meant to say "what I just described".

>>8271463
So you're a retard surrounded by retards?
My friends and I say corporatism to refer to retards like you, if I say that online should I sperg out when I'm called out for using a made up definition?

>>8271464
>no it wasn't
I would call technical issues like the ones experienced at Spaceworld a bit of a bad reveal. Not a terrible one, just... definitely not a fantastic one.
>that doesn't mean it was a bad reveal
When the people I talked to who were there(mostly some distant Japanese family members) all described as a bad reveal, kind of is one. They all gave benefit of the doubt though since clearly it was an early build and things should've improved, and they were rewarded with a decent game.

>>8271469
When even my French 3D graphics teacher understands what I'm referring to without even needing to describe it, your argument falls apart. Please, offer me a different word. I'm open to expand my vocabulary.

>>8271472
honestly although the press in us shit themselves over the game the vast majority of them probably didnt actually play the demo in person

>>8271472
How about retard, retard

>>8271489
Yeah. That's pretty much what happened in the West. Also, I'm pretty sure we got a later build for any journalists that didn't go to SW, so they got to play an actually improved version.

>>8271495
Why are you so aggressive over a word that isn't even used that often. I could see something like the appropriation of an acronym of nwmi being bad, but... corporatism no matter the fucking context is still terrible, so what's so bad about my definition? Besides, if you don't want me using it anymore, I'm giving you a chance to stop me from doing so. You don't have to pick a fight over it.