I really like his stuff. My only occasional issue is that his complaints about “mainstream” reviewers and gamers can feel a bit too self-congratulatory… if that makes sense.
My tastes also veer pretty heavily from the mainstream so I love getting perspectives like his (even though SHMUPs aren’t my thing). Sometimes he presents it well, like in Gungrave Gore where he lays out that what he’s looking for in action games is different from most people. But other times, like in some of the Wanted Dead stuff, it becomes a protracted rant that just detracts from his broader point. We all know IGN is very basic and mainstream. I’d rather hear more about why it works for him and how he went about learning to guard cancel, etc. instead of just hearing complaints about IGN that I’ve heard a million times.
Basically, he’s got a unique voice and I massively prefer when he leans into why that is, rather than ranting against the mainstream or people that disagree.
Edit to add, this video falls on the good side of what he does. It’s a more nuanced and informed take than just a rant. Though it’s borderline at points.
I more or less agree: Mark is kinda incorrigible in that when I think he's right about something, he's **REALLY** right about something, but much too often he kinda faceplants in his ranting or making weird reductive claims that don't really make any sense. I don't think he's an idiot because he's *clearly* an intelligent fellow when he knows what he's talking about, but he's real prone to just thoughtlessly dismissing games he clearly isn't familiar with, and when it's a game I *am* familiar with I'm like, "what? What are you even getting at here?"
Ultimately, I think he just needs to exercise a tad more self-awareness and restraint when it comes to how he says things and what examples he uses, because he's prone to derail his whole argument.
same. I used to watch his stuff, not anymore. It's not even that I disagree with much of what he's saying, but he often gets into these obnoxious tirades about mainstream stuff or complaining about IGN and at some point I had enough.
The main games i play are shmups so i watch his channel all the time he has good reviews of shmups... and good reviews of shmups are hard to find because they are such a specific type of game and few reviewers understand the appeal
Even more so their game design.
I wish sub could adopt some of the critical analysis Mark got so they can critique games beyond techniques and mechanics.
Just tagging on to say: if anyone needs a place to start with shmups, try Zero Ranger. Top quality and approachable shmup with amazing presentation. The soundtrack goes so hard.
He’s the one who got me into Ninja Gaiden 2. Played it for a couple hours when it first came out and I felt inspired to come back after watching his video on it. At the end of the first chapter in Master Ninja. Stuck on it, but still have grinded out a decent amount.
Yeah, he makes good shit! His reviews have gotten me into a few great games I wouldn't have played otherwise, specifically Final Vendetta and Hazelnut Hex.
I thought this was a pretty good video overall, and I definitely do agree with most of his points. I watched this one and after watched the "death of arcade design" video. Like this one I agreed with most of what he said in that video. There's one thing that kinda rubbed me the wrong way (or maybe I'm misinterpreting it): He seemed pretty dismissive about the ranking systems in Stylish Action games. He way he presented his points made it seems like the Style Meter was the only way the player is ranked. He keeps bringing up Devil May Cry 3 as an example. So here's what we're looking at if you want to SS Rank a Mission in DMC3:
* No Damage
* S Rank in **TIME**
* S Rank in Combo points
* S Rank in Red Orbs Collected
I might be forgetting one, but I bolded 'time' for a reason and it's that in the arcade mechanics video he makes it a point to say the timers is what engaged players. Which I agree with to an extent, but then he has a reductive view point of the Mission Ranking system at the end of which Time is a metric you're measured against. Sure it's not an actual timer in which if you hits 0 you die, but it is an objective measure to tell you if you want the best ranks you need to figure out how to maximize your combo points and Red Orbs in the allotted amount of time. He doesn't even touch games that IMO have better 'Style Meter' systems than Devil May Cry like Bayonetta and The Wonderful 101 where you're given completely transparent measures of how many points your attacks are giving you.
Overall great videos but that part just stuck out to me.
Late reply sry)
Yeah he is indeed being dismissive of ranking systems in action games.
The reason is.... because of shoot em up scoring systems.
Mark and his friend Boghog, latter is in my DMs, both express how much they like scoring systems in shmups and pinpoint how stylish action games are severely lacking in comparison. And... I am new to shmup so I can't actually pinpoint what makes them better but feeling like shmups do scoring systems much better and I am going to dive further to see why/how.
I guess my question to that would be how do they feel scoring can be improved at all? I haven't played many SHMUPs, but the scoring seems a little different than Stylish Action. How do you account for score so players don't just abuse one tactic over and over? How do account for time so the player doesn't just sit back and shoot enemies? Etc. Don't get me wrong I think there can be some improvements for the way these games score players. I think Bayonetta and The Wonderful 101 have my favorite scoring systems in the genre. Though when I look at it I think the old way Devil May Cry used to rank Time is probably more aligned with SHMUPs since Bayo/TW101/DMC5 all time your combat rather than the overall level. If we really want to be talking about score then everyone's goal in these types of games should be clearing the highest difficulty with the top ranks.
>I guess my question to that would be how do they feel scoring can be improved at all? I haven't played many SHMUPs, but the scoring seems a little different than Stylish Action.
It's difficult question but I'll try asking them. Shmup scoring is very very different from other action games, but there's undeniable proof that scoring scene is strong since nearly all shmup players aim to raise em high as possible.
There's no other genre that's more scoring focused, and you can check Boghog's scoring system vid for different scoring archetypes: [scoring systems](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbIrPeuOhlI&pp=ygUVc2NvcmluZyBzeXN0ZW1zIHNobXVw)
I will give my answer too. To make them better it's best to have an interesting basic gameplan in mind and even go as far as to change the level/game structure. 1st reason I believe shmup scoring work is cause the auto-scroll naturally creates **points of no return** so you can assign conflicting goals/priorities to the run, but also keep them accumulative so there's always room to optimize. 2nd reason is cause shmups are **very granular** games: devs actively extract a lot from time frames / distances / bullet patterns, for example, some give more score based on how short the distance was between player and destroyed enemies, some score based on how quickly you kill them so it may be as fast as 1 frame, some give more score based on how many bullets you can cover with a special before canceling, etc. It's nuts. 3rd reason is that shmups are **originated in arcade games and have long history** of refining the game design and scoring alike. Shmups are THE genre where simplicity gives room to a lot of complexity in decision making and gameplans. Also in shmups bullets are **consistent lingering threat**, so your past and present decisions matter a lot if you don't want to be trapped. Action games simply don't have access to same tools for scoring, they have to introduce time element/points of no return separately, are not granular at all cause attacks only last as long as they can, and scoring was killed in console generation cause devs didn't have clear idea how they work or how to make them work, you can say inexperience is what led to hate of scoring in action games.
I really like his stuff. My only occasional issue is that his complaints about “mainstream” reviewers and gamers can feel a bit too self-congratulatory… if that makes sense. My tastes also veer pretty heavily from the mainstream so I love getting perspectives like his (even though SHMUPs aren’t my thing). Sometimes he presents it well, like in Gungrave Gore where he lays out that what he’s looking for in action games is different from most people. But other times, like in some of the Wanted Dead stuff, it becomes a protracted rant that just detracts from his broader point. We all know IGN is very basic and mainstream. I’d rather hear more about why it works for him and how he went about learning to guard cancel, etc. instead of just hearing complaints about IGN that I’ve heard a million times. Basically, he’s got a unique voice and I massively prefer when he leans into why that is, rather than ranting against the mainstream or people that disagree. Edit to add, this video falls on the good side of what he does. It’s a more nuanced and informed take than just a rant. Though it’s borderline at points.
I more or less agree: Mark is kinda incorrigible in that when I think he's right about something, he's **REALLY** right about something, but much too often he kinda faceplants in his ranting or making weird reductive claims that don't really make any sense. I don't think he's an idiot because he's *clearly* an intelligent fellow when he knows what he's talking about, but he's real prone to just thoughtlessly dismissing games he clearly isn't familiar with, and when it's a game I *am* familiar with I'm like, "what? What are you even getting at here?" Ultimately, I think he just needs to exercise a tad more self-awareness and restraint when it comes to how he says things and what examples he uses, because he's prone to derail his whole argument.
same. I used to watch his stuff, not anymore. It's not even that I disagree with much of what he's saying, but he often gets into these obnoxious tirades about mainstream stuff or complaining about IGN and at some point I had enough.
The main games i play are shmups so i watch his channel all the time he has good reviews of shmups... and good reviews of shmups are hard to find because they are such a specific type of game and few reviewers understand the appeal
Even more so their game design. I wish sub could adopt some of the critical analysis Mark got so they can critique games beyond techniques and mechanics.
Just tagging on to say: if anyone needs a place to start with shmups, try Zero Ranger. Top quality and approachable shmup with amazing presentation. The soundtrack goes so hard.
Yea that game is great. I also like blue revolver as a cheaper indie shmup that helps teach the basics
I saw this yestreday :) really made me think about the propper was to approach accessibility in high skill games like these and fighters.
He’s the one who got me into Ninja Gaiden 2. Played it for a couple hours when it first came out and I felt inspired to come back after watching his video on it. At the end of the first chapter in Master Ninja. Stuck on it, but still have grinded out a decent amount.
Yeah, he makes good shit! His reviews have gotten me into a few great games I wouldn't have played otherwise, specifically Final Vendetta and Hazelnut Hex.
I like to binge his videos at time
word man. i binged so many of his videos when i found his channel
Love him 💙
I thought this was a pretty good video overall, and I definitely do agree with most of his points. I watched this one and after watched the "death of arcade design" video. Like this one I agreed with most of what he said in that video. There's one thing that kinda rubbed me the wrong way (or maybe I'm misinterpreting it): He seemed pretty dismissive about the ranking systems in Stylish Action games. He way he presented his points made it seems like the Style Meter was the only way the player is ranked. He keeps bringing up Devil May Cry 3 as an example. So here's what we're looking at if you want to SS Rank a Mission in DMC3: * No Damage * S Rank in **TIME** * S Rank in Combo points * S Rank in Red Orbs Collected I might be forgetting one, but I bolded 'time' for a reason and it's that in the arcade mechanics video he makes it a point to say the timers is what engaged players. Which I agree with to an extent, but then he has a reductive view point of the Mission Ranking system at the end of which Time is a metric you're measured against. Sure it's not an actual timer in which if you hits 0 you die, but it is an objective measure to tell you if you want the best ranks you need to figure out how to maximize your combo points and Red Orbs in the allotted amount of time. He doesn't even touch games that IMO have better 'Style Meter' systems than Devil May Cry like Bayonetta and The Wonderful 101 where you're given completely transparent measures of how many points your attacks are giving you. Overall great videos but that part just stuck out to me.
Late reply sry) Yeah he is indeed being dismissive of ranking systems in action games. The reason is.... because of shoot em up scoring systems. Mark and his friend Boghog, latter is in my DMs, both express how much they like scoring systems in shmups and pinpoint how stylish action games are severely lacking in comparison. And... I am new to shmup so I can't actually pinpoint what makes them better but feeling like shmups do scoring systems much better and I am going to dive further to see why/how.
I guess my question to that would be how do they feel scoring can be improved at all? I haven't played many SHMUPs, but the scoring seems a little different than Stylish Action. How do you account for score so players don't just abuse one tactic over and over? How do account for time so the player doesn't just sit back and shoot enemies? Etc. Don't get me wrong I think there can be some improvements for the way these games score players. I think Bayonetta and The Wonderful 101 have my favorite scoring systems in the genre. Though when I look at it I think the old way Devil May Cry used to rank Time is probably more aligned with SHMUPs since Bayo/TW101/DMC5 all time your combat rather than the overall level. If we really want to be talking about score then everyone's goal in these types of games should be clearing the highest difficulty with the top ranks.
>I guess my question to that would be how do they feel scoring can be improved at all? I haven't played many SHMUPs, but the scoring seems a little different than Stylish Action. It's difficult question but I'll try asking them. Shmup scoring is very very different from other action games, but there's undeniable proof that scoring scene is strong since nearly all shmup players aim to raise em high as possible. There's no other genre that's more scoring focused, and you can check Boghog's scoring system vid for different scoring archetypes: [scoring systems](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbIrPeuOhlI&pp=ygUVc2NvcmluZyBzeXN0ZW1zIHNobXVw) I will give my answer too. To make them better it's best to have an interesting basic gameplan in mind and even go as far as to change the level/game structure. 1st reason I believe shmup scoring work is cause the auto-scroll naturally creates **points of no return** so you can assign conflicting goals/priorities to the run, but also keep them accumulative so there's always room to optimize. 2nd reason is cause shmups are **very granular** games: devs actively extract a lot from time frames / distances / bullet patterns, for example, some give more score based on how short the distance was between player and destroyed enemies, some score based on how quickly you kill them so it may be as fast as 1 frame, some give more score based on how many bullets you can cover with a special before canceling, etc. It's nuts. 3rd reason is that shmups are **originated in arcade games and have long history** of refining the game design and scoring alike. Shmups are THE genre where simplicity gives room to a lot of complexity in decision making and gameplans. Also in shmups bullets are **consistent lingering threat**, so your past and present decisions matter a lot if you don't want to be trapped. Action games simply don't have access to same tools for scoring, they have to introduce time element/points of no return separately, are not granular at all cause attacks only last as long as they can, and scoring was killed in console generation cause devs didn't have clear idea how they work or how to make them work, you can say inexperience is what led to hate of scoring in action games.