Where U think the source of Haters originated from???

[hmjohnny]

@ShenSun Great post btw, it's a good break down.

Certain people love to hate stuff which others cherish

I do wonder if Shenmue fanboys are a bit to blame for this too. Both because they hype up a game that was already a high profile financial failure in most people's eyes and because they take the bait and react to the clickbait or trolls.

Dont get me wrong, Shenmue and Shenmue 3 has tons of problems. The way the KS was handled was also a massive problem. Critiquing all the reasonable aspects of the game is fair play and im sure most of us would understand or agree with these critiques. But we can all tell when there is a straight up hit piece towards the game or an agenda on certain forums etc

I agree. I have been vocal about criticisms myself but I sometimes feel like reviewers are judging Shenmue in bad faith. I get why some people may not like the games, but I really think the originals, especially Shenmue 2, are objectively not bad games. Despite this it feels like they are held to a different standard, where even the legitimate criticisms are exasperated compared to its contemporaries.

The one thing that really baffles me is the sneaky articles and youtubers who pretend they are a fan but then use clever language to attack the game and portray it in a bad light. When in reality they just want drama to drive views and clicks, so they get paid by their advertisers. No morals or ethics. Just tell the truth and stop being sneaky. If you like it, cool. If you dont, cool. But be honest.

Yup, that's why you get clickbait articles like this one. Where the writer seems to say he likes the game, but spends 2/3 of the article bashing it.

Ultimately, ppl can hate all they want. The shenmue fans won in the end and that eats the haters up, especially those who always said fans were chasing a dream and the series should stay dead etc. The jokes on them. We won.

I wish that were the case. But now we are still stuck waiting for this series to continue and the needle hasn't moved much. Given all the backlash with EGS and how the game was received, we may not end up on the winning side of this.

 

[hmjohnny]

It doesn't matter as you got my meaning anyway. And no, it didn't prove anything to me as I put S3 on par with S2, and a better story would not change that. Would I have liked a better story? Sure, but it still wouldn't have much impact on my overall gaming experience, even if that story brought me to tears or excitement at every cutscene

I mean no offence by this but I find this particular view really strange.

If the story was really powerful wouldn't it by default have elevated your experience? I'm not saying a story in spite of good gameplay, but alongside of it.

 

[spud1897]

Who the fuck is le champion? Also what the fuck happened to this place? Cant even post memes now? Thin skin. Enjoy your shenmue circle jerk.

Drop the aggressive tone. That's not welcome here.

 

[spud1897]

View attachment 6559

Banned for 1 week. Come back when you can engage in the forums without trying to bait anyone.

 

[danielmann861]

Try to keep it on the rails, people.

 

[Dg1995]

One reason I can think of is this that Shenmue popularized QTEs.Which majority of internet gamers hate QTEs.

But Shenmue wasn't responsible for the bad uses of QTEs in video games since QTEs are just a mini game in Shenmue.(A game which is about having lots of mini games)

 

[Bule]

After a lot of research into this question, comprising interviews, statistical number-crunching, and logical syllogisms, I can reveal that the source of Shenmue haters originated from:

Nantucket.

Seriously though, Shenmue came out at a time when Sega was on the wane and Sony was rising up, so I would say that had an influence - there has always been platform rivalry regarding exclusives and a lot of trash talked as a result.

But I don't think there is a single source, rather lots of sources with lots of reasons, some logical and rational, others not so much.

My personal reason for hating Shenmue is because I'm m̶a̶d̶ s̶a̶n̶e̶ m̶a̶d̶ s̶a̶n̶e̶ h̶a̶p̶p̶y̶ sleepy.

Shenmue4life!

 

[Bule]

Shenmue4life!

Shenmue 4 confirmed.

 

[ShenSun]

@ShenSun Great post btw, it's a good break down.


I do wonder if Shenmue fanboys are a bit to blame for this too. Both because they hype up a game that was already a high profile financial failure in most people's eyes and because they take the bait and react to the clickbait or trolls.

I agree. I have been vocal about criticisms myself but I sometimes feel like reviewers are judging Shenmue in bad faith. I get why some people may not like the games, but I really think the originals, especially Shenmue 2, are objectively not bad games. Despite this it feels like they are held to a different standard, where even the legitimate criticisms are exasperated compared to its contemporaries.

Yup, that's why you get clickbait articles like this one. Where the writer seems to say he likes the game, but spends 2/3 of the article bashing it.

I wish that were the case. But now we are still stuck waiting for this series to continue and the needle hasn't moved much. Given all the backlash with EGS and how the game was received, we may not end up on the winning side of this.

Yeah i do agree, we do have a tendancy to react to every little criticism of the game from obvious trolls. Its definitely something we should be aware of and avoid going forward.

My winning comment was referring to Shenmue 3, but you're right, the battle continues trying to get Shenmue 4 made. We all fought one h£ll of a battle for Shenmue 3. I think we've done everything we can for the series at this point. Fortunately, ysnet is in a prime position to pump out more games if they get given the green light. We'll just have to wait and see, and hope for the best that everything works out.

Thanks for the response.

 

[iknifaugood]

Sure, but you are just playing names with me as I posted that the stuff I'm talking about is any narrative elements that players have no agency or interaction with.

No I'm not; story in a game comprises everything from the setting, to the main character, to the enemies etc. not just the cutscenes and dialogue. I'm a game developer and I've been in meetings in front of big and small companies and story is always a primary consideration in single player games, especially when it comes to art direction, character design, level design and progression (oftentimes it is the progression of a game). It's one of the main reasons S3's drawn out progression is totally baffling to me. If you're simply talking about cutscenes then I have no idea how to respond to that because that's not how games are designed.

These levels all could have taken place within a single forest or desert, with Kojima then suplementing a 2 hour cutscene to make up for whatever discrepancy players might find in the plot and the game would still be the same.

Going from a war zone in South America to sneaking around the streets of London with instant fail states is not the same thing as going inside a building for a scenario change. You're trying to make it seem like these things exist in a vacuum and they don't unless you look at something from the highest level and say "it's still a stealth action game therefore it's the same difference", at which point you might as well argue that MGS2 and MGS3 are the same game apart from the camo and health systems (and if that's the case then why would you ever be interested in playing a sequel?).

As for S3, I'm not done with the game but after hearing that what you are having issue with has to do mainly with the narrative, I doubt I will change my mind about the game.

I don't think it'll change your overall opinion of the game but I'm very curious to know what you think when you finish it.

To be clear I love narrative-driven games as the best game of 2019 to me is Disco Elysium, a pure narrative-driven non-combat focused RPG, with only talking as the only means of game progress, probably the first of its kind. If you like story then maybe that might be a game for you, though I can't guarantee the quality of its story as I only started playing it. Regardless, it's an amazing game so far and that's what I'm getting at.

I bought it, haven't played it yet but I've heard good things.

 

[iknifaugood]

I have been vocal about criticisms myself but I sometimes feel like reviewers are judging Shenmue in bad faith. I get why some people may not like the games, but I really think the originals, especially Shenmue 2, are objectively not bad games.

Which reviews are in bad faith? You can't say that games are objectively bad or not bad (Shenmue 1 makes a pretty fucking strong case for being bad by making you waste time IRL to advance the game clock) but for the most part, reviewers just state their opinion and their reasoning. I agree that certain elements of Shenmue are held to an absurdly high standard compared to its contemporaries, especially people who complain about the combat system. But even then, S1 has like a dozen fights over its 20 hours, never properly tutorializes the combat system, then goes from fighting maybe 4 guys at a time to an insane 70 man brawl which leans into the worst aspects of the combat system. So it's not like those criticisms are without merit.

 

[spud1897]

The Shenmue 1 reviews I think are clean in that respect.

It's the Shenmue III kickstarter, demo comments and some reviews that are questionable. A quick google will show the misinformation that some outlets were peddling.

Take USgamer. Openly hates Shenmue and is biased against it already. Reviews the demo with incoherent arguments to try and back up her claims & then had to retract admitting she didn't like the game publically.

I know bias works both ways but there's clearly some who have been against Shenmue III without real reason.

 

[Guppy]

I mean no offence by this but I find this particular view really strange.

If the story was really powerful wouldn't it by default have elevated your experience? I'm not saying a story in spite of good gameplay, but alongside of it.

If you are just talking about pure exposition like cutscenes or even dialogues, not really anything substantial compared to the experience from actively engaging with the in-game world like walking, talking to npcs and having the world react back in a believable manner. One main standout feature in a Shenmue game is that NPCs have so many dialogue trees and they vary according to the context of the player's progress within the game, meaning they react to what your avatar is specifically doing at that moment, which is really immersive. If these NPCs all speak like a bad English dubbed anime, cool, the people in this town are a bunch of funny weirdos. And if they all behave like they graduated from the same acting school, damn, these people are so serious would be my reaction. Either way, I'm immersed just the same. It will only vary depending on the player's taste, but the game being good or bad is independent to that, if you have a clear criteria to what evaluate a game in mind besides differences in taste.

No I'm not; story in a game comprises everything from the setting, to the main character, to the enemies etc. not just the cutscenes and dialogue. I'm a game developer and I've been in meetings in front of big and small companies and story is always a primary consideration in single player games, especially when it comes to art direction, character design, level design and progression (oftentimes it is the progression of a game). It's one of the main reasons S3's drawn out progression is totally baffling to me. If you're simply talking about cutscenes then I have no idea how to respond to that because that's not how games are designed.

Too broad, but if story is all that, with you meaning that story and game design are basically interchangeable terms, then sure, it would make sense that better stories would automatically lead to better games.

Going from a war zone in South America to sneaking around the streets of London with instant fail states is not the same thing as going inside a building for a scenario change. You're trying to make it seem like these things exist in a vacuum and they don't unless you look at something from the highest level and say "it's still a stealth action game therefore it's the same difference", at which point you might as well argue that MGS2 and MGS3 are the same game apart from the camo and health systems (and if that's the case then why would you ever be interested in playing a sequel?).

Not in a vacuum, but it doesn't appear we talking about the same thing so anyway, the answer to your question is evolution of the genre.

I don't think it'll change your overall opinion of the game but I'm very curious to know what you think when you finish it.

Sure, I'll let you know if you are still around.

BTW, to not stray away from the OP, is all the hate really still out there? After the clicks and baits died down, it seems to me the fans that didn't like S3 are the ones bitter about the series.

 

[Sh3ppy]

The Shenmue 1 reviews I think are clean in that respect.

It's the Shenmue III kickstarter, demo comments and some reviews that are questionable. A quick google will show the misinformation that some outlets were peddling.

Take USgamer. Openly hates Shenmue and is biased against it already. Reviews the demo with incoherent arguments to try and back up her claims & then had to retract admitting she didn't like the game publically.

I know bias works both ways but there's clearly some who have been against Shenmue III without real reason.

was this the reviewer that said it was a cash-grab or something along those lines?

 

[spud1897]

was this the reviewer that said it was a cash-grab or something along those lines?

Yeah cashing in on nostalgia was the term used IIRC

 

[iknifaugood]

Too broad, but if story is all that, with you meaning that story and game design are basically interchangeable terms, then sure, it would make sense that better stories would automatically lead to better games.

Not interchangeable, but inexorably linked in certain games. You can't describe the design doc of Shenmue without describing the story unless you literally boil it down to: talk to NPC A then talk to NPC B then talk to NPC C then watch a cutscene; it's a series of ever changing objectives with no actual win state; your progress is literally following the story line. Something like Super Mario on the other hand...

the answer to your question is evolution of the genre.

Not every sequel "evolves the genre", the difference between MGS2 and 3 is pretty negligible from a programming/engine standpoint (discounting the multiplayer). Plenty of series barely evolve (games like Call of Duty, GTA, Yakuza, Assassin's Creed etc. have several entries that are virtually identical in terms of mechanics). My point is that saying something like "MGS4 could take place in one location and change virtually nothing about the game" is only true if you look at games as nothing more than a set of mechanics in isolation in which case, why would you ever play a sequel unless it changes the mechanics?

BTW, to not stray away from the OP, is all the hate really still out there? After the clicks and baits died down, it seems to me the fans that didn't like S3 are the ones bitter about the series.

I think by "hate" OP meant hatred of Shenmue as a game/series and its fans as gullible idiots who like bad games. I don't think anyone has changed their minds on that but obviously they're not going to publish articles about that in perpetuity. The only people still talking about Shenmue now are people who care about Shenmue, be it fans who were disappointed or fans who were happy.

 

[hmjohnny]

Which reviews are in bad faith? You can't say that games are objectively bad or not bad (Shenmue 1 makes a pretty fucking strong case for being bad by making you waste time IRL to advance the game clock) but for the most part, reviewers just state their opinion and their reasoning. I agree that certain elements of Shenmue are held to an absurdly high standard compared to its contemporaries, especially people who complain about the combat system. But even then, S1 has like a dozen fights over its 20 hours, never properly tutorializes the combat system, then goes from fighting maybe 4 guys at a time to an insane 70 man brawl which leans into the worst aspects of the combat system. So it's not like those criticisms are without merit.

I think a lot of articles were written to cash in on the hype of Shenmue 3 and its controversy. Take the article I linked in my previous post. The same author wrote a different editorial only 1 year earlier (prior to S3 announcement) and the tone is completely different.

I was also primarily thinking of the combat. I mean people can complain about everything but I don't feel other games are held to that standard. Some of the criticisms are also just factually wrong or exaggerated or based on technical limitations that other games from the same era are not held to. I read one reviewer who said that the camera in the combat was bad and the game lacked any lock on feature for enemies. The latter isn't true since the game auto locks, and yes the camera is fixed compared to modern games free form control but is still completely serviceable given the times. Dunkey did a review of Super Mario 64 this year hailing that game as a masterpiece, have you played it recently? Where are the retrospectives showing how awful the camera is in that game?

I read another reviewer who complained about the loading, which was an issue in the originals, but not in the HD re-release. He asked why a game in released in 2001 couldn't have procedural loading like modern games do.

Also, you bring up a good point about how a lot of reviewers just fully ignore Shenmue 2. With the HD re-releases why are so many reviewers speaking about Shenmue broadly as a series when they are only looking at the first game? I hear so many of the common criticisms like waiting etc, which were rectified in the sequels, still brought up when talking about the series at large. What other game series is only judged on the strength of initial entry and the sequel ignored?

As for objectivity vs subjectivity, yes fundamentally all opinions are subjective but not all opinions are equal; people need to support their arguments with sources from the text (which most reviewers do). What I mean by objectively not a bad game is that there are games that I don't like because of genre or concept, but I can recognize that they are well made. If you hate a certain genre, then decide to review a game from it and say its a bad game, don't you think that's coming at it in bad faith?

Again, there are a ton of legitimate criticisms, but even you must admit Shenmue 2 at least is not a bad game by most metrics, yet that's what it's been called by professional critics. Even if they are conflating the series as whole.

 

[hmjohnny]

If you are just talking about pure exposition like cutscenes or even dialogues, not really anything substantial compared to the experience from actively engaging with the in-game world like walking, talking to npcs and having the world react back in a believable manner. One main standout feature in a Shenmue game is that NPCs have so many dialogue trees and they vary according to the context of the player's progress within the game, meaning they react to what your avatar is specifically doing at that moment, which is really immersive. If these NPCs all speak like a bad English dubbed anime, cool, the people in this town are a bunch of funny weirdos. And if they all behave like they graduated from the same acting school, damn, these people are so serious would be my reaction. Either way, I'm immersed just the same. It will only vary depending on the player's taste, but the game being good or bad is independent to that, if you have a clear criteria to what evaluate a game in mind besides differences in taste

Thanks for articulating, I understand where you are coming from now though I can't say I relate. It seems you look at games as more of a simulation/technical experience where I prefer to look at it more holistically. I think we just differ in our approach to what we like, but thanks for clarifying.

 

[Dietsoap]

Which reviews are in bad faith?

I don't read reviews personally, but @mjqjazzbar posted an excerpt from Polygon's where they claimed the combat hadn't changed from previous installments...

 

[iknifaugood]

As for objectivity vs subjectivity, yes fundamentally all opinions are subjective but not all opinions are equal; people need to support their arguments with sources from the text (which most reviewers do). What I mean by objectively not a bad game is that there are games that I don't like because of genre or concept, but I can recognize that they are well made. If you hate a certain genre, then decide to review a game from it and say its a bad game, don't you think that's coming at it in bad faith?

Take USgamer. Openly hates Shenmue and is biased against it already. Reviews the demo with incoherent arguments to try and back up her claims & then had to retract admitting she didn't like the game publically.

It's true that if someone who hates strategy games decides to review a strategy game and then gives it a negative review for being a strategy game, that's arguing in bad faith. The criticism of Shenmue isn't really like this because Shenmue has always had a problem with genre (how should it be assessed? As an adventure game? An RPG? A martial arts game?). For instance, this is from the USGamer review (not sure if it's the same review @spud1897 ):

This padding makes immersion an unfortunately difficult state to achieve. On one hand you have sheer pointlessness, whereas on the other you have exposition so hamfisted it's near condescending. That combination would be inexcusable in any other narratively-driven medium, and the same should be the case for video games. It causes a potentially good story to eventuate in a wild goose chase steeped in pure tedium, where you look in 500 drawers in each building—each of which triggers a painfully slow and uninviting animation—just to uncover a clue you probably already knew. Early in the game, Hazuki finds a list of stonemasons and deduces, "that's it, the thugs are after stonemasons," after already knowing that said thugs have targeted exclusively stonemasons thus far and having been told by one of the victims, Zhou, "it seems they're going for stonemasons."

Even if that is being argued by someone who hated Shenmue going in, those are completely valid criticisms. In fact this review is very close to my own opinion of the game and I arrived at it from the complete opposite side.

I don't read reviews personally, but @mjqjazzbar posted an excerpt from Polygon's where they claimed the combat hadn't changed from previous installments...

I've seen this sentiment echoed in several reviews and it's completely baffling to me. But then again so is the assertion that this is an unchanged extension of the previous games and if you liked them then you will love this.