blog-fort-blog

[blog-fort-blog]

Ding Dong Your Opinion Is Wrong.

This guy made a subjective article on the internet- Here’s why he’s objectively wrong. In his article, the author, Brendan Lowry goes on to explain a few reasons why he personally prefers Heroes of the Storm over League of Legends.

Well, Brendan, I’m sorry your opinion is wrong and you’re bad at the game, but that doesn’t change the fact that League of Legends is a much better game.

His first mistake is mentioning the map variety. Heroes of the Storm has a handful of unique maps, each with different themes and objectives. Contrastingly, League of Legends has only one map. (Technically it has three maps but no one cares about the other two.) Well, I’m sorry to burst your bubble, Brendan, but one great map is a lot better than a collection of horrible ones. The unique objectives and themes are meaningless when they all boil down to ‘stand over here for a few minutes to win’. I’d rather play in a map that I’ve mastered inside and out, than a handful of half-assed maps.

Next, our pal Brendan goes on to criticize League’s gameplay focus, claiming that Heroes of the Storm promotes teamwork, whereas League of Legends promotes solo-carrying, and excluding the rest of the team- Which is just flat out wrong.

He goes as far as to say that this is a major cause hostility, and toxicity in the League of Legends community, because it rewards selfishness and greed. No, Brendan. League of Legends isn’t toxic because of solo-carrying. League of Legends is toxic because everyone is hardstuck Bronze.

Lastly, he adds that Heroes of the Storm adds an extra layer of complexity, teamwork and skill-expression, because instead of focusing on just getting kills, HotS is objective-oriented. He complains that League of Legends is simplistic, yet praises Heroes for it’s simplicity, mistaking it for depth.

Newsflash, Brendan, League of Legends isn’t just about kills. As a matter of fact, kills matter very little in LoL if the player doesn’t know how to extend their lead, punish the enemy team, roam, farm, push and yes- Take critical objectives to benefit their team. The difference is, League’s core mechanics are all important and well integrated into the gameplay. And while yes, sometimes a single player can carry a entire match, that’s not necessarily a bad thing. League gives you to potential and tools to make big plays, unbelievable comebacks, and surmount all odds.

To quote a videogamedunkey video, in Heroes of the Storm, “There’s no last hitting, no items, no gold, kills don’t matter, the matches don’t matter, and the player especially doesn’t matter.” Heroes of the Storm doesn’t add depth with its objectives, it simplifies and streamlines the mechanics for a casual audience to such an extent that the only thing that matters are the objectives. Everyone contributes to the team’s victory, Brendan, but if there’s a couple of bad players, Brendan, the game is ruined for everyone.

League of Legends still kinda sucks tho’.

Link to the article

Link the the videogamedunkey video (vulgar and tongue-in-cheek)

[blog-fort-blog]

The Horrifying Truth Behind Sonic Riders

Originally I was going to find a positive review of Sonic Riders, and explain why I enjoyed it as a kid in tandem with that. My plans changed however when I made a horrifying discovery. All the review sites that gave Sonic Riders a positive score have long since been shut down. Logically, there’s only one reason why irrelevant game review sites from 2006 could be shut down. Sonic Riders is killing game review sites and GameSpot is in on it.

GameSpot has long since been suspected of shady business dealings. Just who is Spot? What is his game? Of course- This doesn’t prove they’re involved with Sonic Rider’s crimes against game reviews, but if you connect the dots, it does paint a terrifying picture.

In their review, GameSpot talks at length about the game’s poor design, outdated mechanics, and non-existent story. These bold claims are a sharp contrast against the game’s amazing, albeit a little ahead of it’s time, design. They took the worlds fastest running hero- And put him on a hover board. Simply brilliant. The story rivals the greatest works of Shakespeare. Birds are stealing chaos emeralds for the something something… Oh and Eggman is there! He’s got a hover board too. And so does the monkey from Super Monkey Ball. It all makes perfect sense.

They go on the complain about the slow, unnecessary pit stops, the poorly integrated characters, the “hammy voice acting” and grating audio. And yet, they never stop to consider how the racers feel. They need the little pit stop breaks or else they’ll get tired. They never stop to mention the legendary rivalry between Sonic and the unforgettable Jet the Hawk, or the awesome theme song. For shame GameSpot.

But then, if GameSpot is in cahoots with Sonic Riders, why then would they slander it? Simple. They were playing the long con. Two years later, they gave the sequel Sonic Riders: Zero Gravity a devastatingly low score despite positive user ratings. The last two great Sonic games before an era of mediocrity. These articles are merely a facade. GameSpot knew full well these games were hidden gems, but they stayed quiet about it, so they could keep their reviews up. Why? Because Sega needed Sonic to fail.

It was Sega all along- But why Sega would keep pumping out horrible Sonic games is another mystery.

Awesome Theme Song

Review

[blog-fort-blog]

Breath of the Wild isn’t perfect (And why that’s a good thing)

If you asked me what the best Legend of Zelda game is, I honestly wouldn’t be able to tell you. Well, actually I’d tell you it’s Twilight Princess and laugh in your face if you even suggested Ocarina of Time or Breath of the Wild. It’s a difficult choice nonetheless, and that’s exactly why this article caught my eye.

“Breath of the Wild is both a masterpiece, and a disaster.” A statement so contradictive, yet so painfully accurate.

Breath of the Wild is like a beautifully rendered puddle. Gorgeous to look at, but very shallow once you actually set foot in it. It’s massive open world, freedom of exploration and the sheer amount of player options truly set it apart from the other Zelda games. And that’s exactly what so many people, myself included, disliked about it.

It didn’t feel like a Zelda game. The core basics are there, but there was none of the magic. As the article goes on to explain, Breath of the Wild lacked the story and depth of its predecessors. There were fewer dungeons, fewer memorable characters, and of course, no sassy imp berating you along the way.

That said, The Legend of Zelda has a tradition of not following traditions. One of the main reasons the series is still so strong today, is that each installment brings something new to the table, and radically redefines the series. There is no “true” Zelda game, just core aspects that tie together a wildly varied series that’s always trying something new. Let's just ignore Link’s Crossbow Training though.

So does that make Breath of the Wild a masterpiece for setting the bar for all future open-world games and redefining player freedom? Or a disaster for too radically changing the formula, and forgetting it’s roots? Well, it’s a bit of both. A disasterpiece, as the article puts it.

Destructoid’s article perfectly captures my stance on the latest Zelda installment, the direction of the series as a whole, and concludes by saying there’s no definitive way to make a good Zelda game, and that the best Zelda game is entirely subjective. To this I must disagree. It’s still Twilight Princess.

https://www.destructoid.com/breath-of-the-wild-is-both-a-masterpiece-and-a-disaster-432692.phtml

[blog-fort-blog]

God I’m tired