Is Vampire Survivors a Video Game?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 сен 2024
- #videoessay
Also, F off Asmongold. Don't comment on this video. You ain't welcome here.
Patreon : / socratetris
Tip Jar : streamlabs.com...
Books : www.amazon.com...
PLAYLISTS:
Philosophy of Video Games:
• Philosophy of Games wi...
GTA Interviews : Discussions of Games with Other Creative People!
• Gamers Tell All | Inte...
In general, evolutions can only drop from chests acquired after the ten minute mark. Some stages have different rules though and for example evolutions can drop in all chests (sometimes with small exceptions) or in a specific early chest. But if they can drop, they will drop.
For some weapons the evolution rules can also be slightly different, like only evolving with fully upgraded weapon and corresponding passive(s).
I think slight differences in the rules on each stage plays into my confusion. I'm not sure how i feel about the core rules being changed like that without exposing that as part of a stage's gimmick
@@SocraTetris At which point in the development of Vampire Survivors did you start playing? Because I was always wondering how the experience is for anyone who started playing after a bunch of the updates were released.
All the secrets and rules changes came in little by little and caused little communal scavenger hunts for these additions. The general flow of engagement with the game at the time was short bursts of high activity, stop playing for a while (the mentioned lacking extrinsic motivators) and return for another short, intense burst.
Playing VS during its very deliberate update schedule and content trickle, was probably in itself a whole different game/experience than the finished game would be for any newcomers or people who skipped over those update and returned later.
The experience of playing games during early access with constant content additions and gameplay changes is a whole topic by itself. Something that is hard to capture by just looking at the finished product or the different versions in a vacuum. Probably changes also how the players engage with the game and the developers with the design process.
It was post launch, but the DLC stuff had juet started right around wgen I decided i'd played enough of it
NO.
Factually incorrect
@@SocraTetris You literally don't know what a fact is. Also, it isn't a video game and none of your arguments for why it is are based on logic, reasoning, or critical thinking. Take the L
Just curious, did asmongold comment or watch one of your videos on his stream before? Just trying to understand the f asmongold from you
No. Not one of my videos. Think of it as insurance, and leave it at that.
@@SocraTetris ah. Just hatred towards someone youve never interacted with. Pretty sure a please dont react statement would of been better.
Incorrect. But I will not clarify.
yes, numbers go up. me likey.
but it takes like loads of hours to unlock everything, so much content.
its like 5x as much content as when i stopped playing
Maybe, possibly, likely, perhaps
Chest weapon upgrades are not random. Specific chests can upgrade and varies from stage to stage. The general rule is that the chests dropped after the 10 minute mark can upgrade, this rule is violated in a few cases though.
For example the very first chest dropped in mad forest can upgrade. You'll learn which specific chests can and can't upgrade with more play, there is however chest RNG in that some enemies only have a percentile chance to drop chests (most chests are 100% drop chance).
NO ACTUALLY... remain a very FUN VIDEOGAME as me. Like all things... it depends on what you mean, who is asking, what is meant... the question itself is really strange. A similar question could be asked about another 2000 games, 2000 movies, and even 2000 videos on RUclips, but in any case, my answer is that the game in question... is indeed a game that falls within the parameters of that type of... game. And I repeat, when I read the title of the post and the particular question, I remain... I don't know how to describe it... astonished?. Certainly, if the intention was to create a sensational title to generate VIEWS AND LIKES, great job indeed but on the other hand, if the question is really serious... I remain dumbfounded, to say the least.
I would point toward the content of the video once you are content with the title :)
Dude a white pixel moving around is a game like PONG in its era 😂
As long as you enjoys it then its a game.
I agree. Loneliness is a flashgame with just a black pixel where the only verb is arguably "walk." I hope you also watched the video and didnt just respond to the title?
I think more people LOVE this game than you give credit, but thats just my observation. I think the game is divisive because many people who like it, truly love it (me) but people who dont also have strong feelings. I would argue it has more impact than just a short while like you suggested. I have played many games with similar premises that came immediately after that are considered "vampire survivor likes" that iterate on its ideas. Interesting video! I enjoyed the new take on videogame reviews.
Don't get me wrong, I liked it quite a lot. I've paid attention to the development of the Bullet Heaven genre (that's the tag being used), and i've seen a lot of nitpicky debate about what even counts. So I do believe that it is having a moment. But i'm not yet convinced that this will become a new mainstay genre.
Like how people made endless runners for years copying the success of Temple Run, but the last two that had any moderate success was a Sonoc game, and Mario Run which failed to meet its publisher's expectations. Stayed pooular for about 5-7 years, but its practically finished as a genre. Bullet Heaven may still go this way, and it feels aestheticqlly similar to me
I am so grateful that your videos are getting longer. 🤗
these last videos got longer naturallly over the course of the project. Sort od found my spark again after a long period of burnout
No it is spaghetti. Saved you 17 min of life.
You realize i now have to make a video about why Vampire Survivors is, in fact, a spaghetti, don't you? Why have you done this?
@@SocraTetris 😂
17 minutes... Lol
Sould it be more or less funny if it were longer or shorter? because this is actually the 5th video in a 5-part series
I can promise you suikodens certainly instilled a certain "injustice can't be allowed to bloom or you get a Luca"
"Suikodens" as in the video game series?
@@SocraTetris specifically the first two, yes. I don't remember which was which, but I do remember one was, you can't let injustice stand and the other was more, even if the ends are good, it doesn't justify terrible means. Those stuck with me, deeply.
I also played 3 and 4 but by that time, it was more of playing a game. But now that I think about it, a lot of the ways I see things come from games like that, I still hate to see the smallest of acts of bad IF they hurt another living being. Other than that, it gets very gray but that's a line I, in 35 years, haven't moved. I've changed my opinion on many things after gaining more info but that's something that's never slipped and it started with those, other games, anime, and super heroes.
I think that is a bit of an inflexible approach to ethics, and lacking flexibility typically result setting unethical standards when it comes to how people author their own values and lives. Dogmatism, draconian reactions, and denying the liberty of choice are all immoral things in my book. But if we take a visceral, emotional reaction to even minor bads, we run the risk of becoming extremists. Who gets to decide that which is bad? If by our own faculties we choose to judge other's values, we automatically assume ourselves better. That elitism is itself a small bad. Thus self critique should come first.
From what you have described, I would say relaxing a little, and not being so self-critical may be a good start towards giving that same level of flexibility to others
For the record, I do not see Vampire Survivors as an "immoral means" by any means/degree. So we will differ on this point from the start.
its really boring from what I can see. Walking around isnt gameplay in the "action roguelike" genre lol. skul is an action roguelike. dead cells. those are action games. this isnt an action game.
Have you played it? I described clearly how walking around is in fact gameplay. I suggest you watch my video called "The agonist element of play." Because further discussion of whoch verbs count as a verb is tedious
@@SocraTetris I disagree. It's not an action game. thats not a verb. an action game is generally a skill based game(of some level some of course are super easy). This is clearly not the same type of game as something like skul. The mechanisms for gameplay are almost entirely in what you get for skills, powerups etc. I didnt say walking wasnt gameplay *generally*. I said its not really something that should be considered gameplay in the action roguelike genre. That is to say that I wouldnt consider this game an action roguelike the skill here is much more decision making imo than being able to play the game effectively with your skill at dodging, attacking etc. Also Even If I think its boring its clearly not bad. The builds and progression seem very well done. I just don't enjoy games like these. My arguement is nothing to do with the quality itself. just that I think its not really fair to something like dead cells to call this an "action roguelike"
Also thanks for responding to my comment respect lol. I added a thing in my text wall.
I wonder, if it was framed as a shmup would it be considered action? If everything was sped up like 20% and it visually looked like flying and dodging bullets rather than walking and dodging enemies, would that change the way you see it?
Which point did you disagree with? because you just shifted the topic from "Walking isn't gameplay" to "Action game isn't a verb." This is called "moving the goalpost." Or Did you just willfully misinterpret my response? Alright, so just having different discussion about what does and does not count as the specific genre of "action roguelike." "action" as a genre is any game that has action; it is one of the least defined genres ranging from zelda to spec ops to dark souls to god of war to Control. Control is an action third person shooter rogue lite. A roguelike is any game like rogue. Rogue is not an action game, so any action game is automatically not a roguelike. You must agree with that point unless you are willing to concept that modifiers to genre tags are flexible and culturally defined. You point about it being "unfair" to other "Action Roguelikes" is irrelevant, because the quality of one game does not reflect in the quality of another. You are describing some games have more action that other action games, therefore some minimum threshold of action should be actionable in order to quality action as action. This is called a "point change fallacy," if you are asserting that something is not a thing that it is until it is more of that thing than other things. Or you are using a "no true scottsman," fallacy, in which a thing does not count as that class of thing because it is not identical or preferable to other things of that class. You dislike or disinterest is, plainly, irrelevant to the classification. Except, it is not irrelevant, because genre is culturally defined, and therefore discussion of which definition applies where is flexible per person who encounters a thing, and thus discussion of the qualification of thing into genre is irrelevant and tedious so long as one person has a personal reason to accept the categorization and the other person has a personal reason to reject the categorization. Does it have procedural generation? yes. does it have levels that reset core mechanics to a base standard on each play? yes. Does it have an action? walking - walking such as to avoid bullets which can be said to be skill based - planning a build - arguably aiming depending on the powerup which is skill based. Slow decision making and the use of a skill which requires fast decision making and fast fine motor control doesn't entail a difference of skill but a frequency of use to me. Unless you would also argue that anything which has fast fine motor control no longer has decision making within it? Like the decision to press a button? That is a very zen philosophy of button-clicking as a skill without thought. Which of these points seems the most pedantic to you? Because that is the one that I would like to make the cornerstone of the rest of the conversation. I implore you not to retreat from any of this conversation, because you clearly have a deep love of semantics, just as I do. So please define each of your terms and respond to each of the above queries, such that we can settle any and all reservations I may have as a person defining VS as an action roguelike. Leave no stone unturned such that I will be persuaded by you flawless set of facts and logic.
@@nexus3756 yeah you're right, this isn't an action game, this is a racing game, with a little bit of city building mechanic in it, you're very smart.