Table of contents
- Space Marine 2 brings back the raw, authentic gaming experience we've been missing for years.
- Space Marine 2 is a visually stunning, immersive experience that perfectly captures the brutal scale and gripping intensity of the Warhammer 40K universe.
- Modern storytelling is obsessed with making characters overly complex and emotional, losing the charm of simple, stoic heroes.
- Modern stories fail when they mistake self-indulgent, unlikable characters for complex ones.
- Games are becoming too fast and complex, making it hard for average players to keep up and enjoy.
- Playing with friends transforms a frustrating game into a fun and memorable experience.
- Space Marine 2 brings back the joy of simple, fun gaming without the grind.
- Games today try too hard to be cinematic masterpieces, but sometimes all you need is dumb fun.
- We need to get back to a time where we could simply buy a game, play it, and walk away feeling satisfied, not every purchase should feel like a lifelong commitment.
- When you stop treating video games like a lifelong commitment, you start enjoying them more.
- Indie and mid-tier games often offer better value and creativity compared to big-budget AAA titles.
- Authentic representation in games comes naturally, but forced diversity feels inauthentic and misses the mark.
Space Marine 2 brings back the raw, authentic gaming experience we've been missing for years.
This video was such a good reminder of what we lost with Warhammer 40K Space Marine 2. The game oozes with so much masculinity that I feel like I've been in a desert for the last few years. It has themes that nobody wants to go near anymore: courage and honor, brotherhood, and for the emperor. It's such a fun game, but the entire time while I was playing it, I couldn't help but shake this feeling of nostalgia, like the game reminds me of something I've lost, something that we have lost.
It's also the integrity and authenticity that games used to have, which now feels very inauthentic. I used to play a lot of games that were far more consumable. I could pick them up, put them down, enjoy them for a while, play with my friends, and leave them without feeling guilty. We've gotten away from that. Space Marine 2 is one of those games. I picked it up, played it, enjoyed it, played it with some friends, and plan on playing more of it, including the co-op and PVE. It doesn’t have annoying systems, daily quests, or a lot of weird mechanics. It just has an in-game system that plays well, allowing you to advance your character.
A lot of people are tired of endless grinds and pointless cosmetics. Especially the swiping for progression—if a game has that, I will still play it, but I won't take it seriously and I won't care about it. Space Marine 2 doesn’t have FOMO, and I don't know if it has a season pass or not, but I'm not committed to it. I can walk away at any moment. While you may say that's true for other games, I think that we've lost that feeling, and I want to talk about that. I want to talk about my experience playing Warhammer 40K Space Marine 2, but I also want to talk about what we've lost—the middle ground.
I love Space Marine 2 so much that I've now spent hours upon hours watching lore videos from Bricky and West Hammer on YouTube. I think the game is so good that, while it may not be as widespread, it's going to have a similar impact as Baldur's Gate 3 did on Dungeons and Dragons. It's a well-crafted, well-delivered experience in a universe that you know little about, driving you to want to know more about it, to have context behind what you've seen, or to answer questions you have and push you to find more experiences to enjoy.
One of the really big components to this that really says a lot is that some of the criticism of Space Marine 2 is that there isn't enough of it. There isn't a lot of variety in gameplay, but if you look at the core gameplay and how the game plays, I think a lot of people really like this game. Space Marine 2 is also taking the role that Gears of War used to have. For those who played Gears 1 through 3 and then played Space Marine 2, it’s like, "Yeah, absolutely right."
Space Marine 2 is an improvement over its predecessor. An indicator of a good game is that the primary criticism is that there isn't more of it. Whether you've played that game or not, it's a great introduction to the 40K Universe. It's grotesque and ugly yet beautiful and fascinating. It merges man and machine, fantasy and reality, on a scale that leaves you awestruck. Scale is a word this game embodies. I cannot tell you how many times I slow-walked through areas, panning the camera around, drinking in the scale and brutality of war. It's awesome; it looks really cool. This used to be Starcraft—Starcraft used to have this same vibe until they decided to stop making it.
Space Marine 2 is a visually stunning, immersive experience that perfectly captures the brutal scale and gripping intensity of the Warhammer 40K universe.
The primary criticism of the game is that there isn't more of it. Whether you've played the game or not, it's a great introduction to the 40K Universe. It's grotesque and ugly, yet beautiful and fascinating. The game merges man and machine, fantasy and reality on a scale that leaves you awestruck. Scale—now that's a word this game embodies. I cannot tell you how many times I slow-walked through areas, panning the camera around, drinking in the scale and brutality of War. It looks really cool; that's really all there is to it.
This game used to be like Starcraft. Starcraft had this same vibe until they decided to stop making it. The game has weight; it feels like you're moving around in a massive suit of armor. The number of enemies and the warring factions in the distance make it an experience that can only be described as a meat grinder. Countless waves of AST Militarum are thrown against unrelenting hordes of Tyranid. It's also really well-designed in a way similar to Helldivers 2. You always feel like you're hanging on by a thread—always one hit away, with no armor and half health. It's very gripping in that way; you're fighting for your life.
Many games want to be big rather than feel big, but Space Marine 2 feels larger than life. The narrative and the atmosphere of this game are immaculate. Saber Interactive has made one of, if not the best, adaptations of Warhammer 40K. The characters in the game are phenomenal because they are all flawed. For example, Gadriel is very untrusting and uncertain, but from his perspective, it makes sense why he's untrusting. Chiron gets upset and really mad at the Chaos Space Marines. Every character is flawed but accepts their responsibility and duty, trying to work beyond that. They have disagreements but keep moving forward.
The protagonists are flawed in a way that isn't self-indulgent or annoying. Chiron and Gadriel had good points and weren't painted as one-dimensional. They were well-written, interesting characters with their own motives and goals. Gadriel was a bit fanatical, but his concerns made sense. Chiron was more fanatical, but even then, it was understandable.
Look at how badass the characters are compared to Khadgar's blue boy wheelchair in World of Warcraft. At the end of the story, each character had to turn something using their hands. Guess who had the least trouble doing it? Chiron, because he has a robot arm. It's a representation of disability and diversity in a way that's completely positive and enhances the story.
On the battle barge, the ships and weapons, the character adaptations, roles within ranks, how characters interact with one another, the scale of war in the background, the blood, the viscera, the music, and the voice acting—all of it is near perfect from a visual standpoint.
Modern storytelling is obsessed with making characters overly complex and emotional, losing the charm of simple, stoic heroes.
Chiron had to turn something using his hands, and guess who had the least trouble doing it? Chiron. You know why? Because he's got a robot arm, that's the reason. It was like, yeah, and I didn't even really notice it. Spoiler? Oh no, that's not a spoiler, that's just what it was. So yeah, it's a representation of disability and any sort of diversity in a way that's completely positive and enhances the story, making it better.
On the battle barge, the ships and weapons, the character adaptations, roles within ranks, how characters interact with one another, the scale of war in the background, the blood, the viscera, the music, and the voice acting—all of it is near perfect from a visual and audio perspective. I felt like I was in this war and in this universe. I took every chance I could to listen to audio logs or eavesdrop on passing conversations, speeches, and sermons, because I was starving for the next bit of lore to add to my experience. I think that's a byproduct of the main cast of characters' performances or, in the case of Space Marine 2, the lack thereof.
Titus and Company are not the most talkative bunch, and they shouldn't be. They're Marines; it's all about the mission, killing their enemies, and serving the emperor, not their personal thoughts, opinions, or feelings. Over the last few years, it feels like they do share their personal thoughts, opinions, and feelings for like three seconds, and then it's like, "Yeah, I don't know about this one, Captain." He's like, "Yep, we'll talk about it later. All right, you ready?" They're like, "Yes, for the emperor," and that was it. It's not that they don't talk about it; it's that they don't indulge in it.
Every modern game, television show, or movie seems allergic to stoicism. They can't allow characters to be silent; they need a character to be complicated, to have feelings, and to need to talk about those feelings. I love the allergic to stoicism component. Holy [expletive] is it true. They don't know how to tell a great story without words. I can't help but feel if this game came out from a major AAA studio, Titus would have multiple monologues in front of a mirror backed by a licensed My Chemical Romance soundtrack. Brother Gadriel would be the comic relief, and Tyron would be the true villain all along. But don't worry, he's not that bad; he's just fighting the system that separated him and his sister because they wouldn't allow her to carry out her dream of being a Space Marine. Now he's vowed to tear down the system, cut to a scene of him dying in Titus's arms in the rain, Titus crying out, wishing the world was different.
That's one of the first things I noticed. Modern writing is so self-indulgent. It was simple characters, a simple story. Even in cut scenes, there really wasn't a lot of dialogue. There were no long millennial quips like "epic win." I can't even imagine what they could do in 40K that would sound cringe, but I'm sure they could invent something. The constant humor, serious situations happening, and there's some sort of comic relief for it. Even in the scenes where characters were showing some doubts or suspicions of Titus, it was all drowned out almost immediately. Think about it: thoughts, opinions, feelings—stuff is heresy. These are Space Marines. Any humanity they have is buried under 2,000 lbs of armor, genetic enhancements, and manipulation, body enhancements, and all faith in the emperor.
Over the last few years, games have really dived into this idea of telling simple stories through complex characters. There's no such thing as just a regular villain anymore. The problem is not that they have complex characters; the problem is that their idea of a complex character is a self-indulgent loser that doesn't have any charisma. That's the reason why I remember I had to read "The Catcher in the Rye," and I hated that book so much. I feel like the reason why I hated the book is because I thought the main character, Holden Caulfield, was the biggest simp loser [expletive] that I had ever encountered. He's just such a loser, and that's it. Holden is a piece of [expletive]. He's a [expletive] loser [expletive], and I don't want to read that. I don't want to see that.
Modern stories fail when they mistake self-indulgent, unlikable characters for complex ones.
Simple stories through complex characters: There's no such thing as just a regular villain anymore. The problem is not that they have complex characters; the problem is that their idea of a complex character is a self-indulgent loser that doesn't have any charisma. That's the reason why, like I remember, I had to read "The Catcher in the Rye," and I hated that book so much. I feel like the reason why I hated the book is because I thought the main character, like Holden Caulfield or whatever, was the biggest simp loser. He was just such a loser, and that's it. Holden is a piece of [__], a loser, and I don't want to read that or see that.
Unlikable characters: I bet the people that write stuff like "Dustborne" or whatever love that; they think that's great. It was so bad, so unlikable. These characters are victims of circumstance more than anything else. They have tragic backstories that we need to feel and empathize over, rather than just being a bad guy and good guys being good guys. Though, to be honest, in Warhammer, everybody's kind of an [__], so it doesn't really matter. Everything is presented in a way that has too much of a direct correlation to real-life social issues.
Complexity in characters: I think having complex characters is a good thing, and some of the best characters are always complex. However, the complexity falls apart when it's being done by a person who doesn't understand what actual complexity is. You can't write cool characters if you're not cool, and I don't think that the people writing a lot of the new characters and stories now are very cool. They're not interesting; they're kind of boring and don't really have a lot of interesting insight into how to make a character interesting.
Self-indulgence in storytelling: The worst part of it is the self-indulgence. It's gotten to the point where they think they're trying to do something theatric, but in the end, all they're doing is giving stories that are uninspired and completely predictable. They're doing the same as everybody else. How many games recently have had a story where the good guys were actually bad and the bad guys were actually good? There's always some sort of parallel to Christianity or some sort of church. I find it very exhausting to see this same trope used over and over. It's like, okay, your parents made you go to church when you were a kid; do we have to relive this trauma with you too? Come on, it's lazy and lame.
Third-person shooters: I love making reviews like this because it gives me the opportunity to help my viewers get to know me a little bit better. So I'm going to let you guys in on a secret: I love third-person shooters. I love the perspective, the aiming, the way it makes melee combat look and feel. I have thousands of hours across the entire Gears of War franchise, especially Gears of War 1, Canals, and Mansion, where my MLG-level slaughterhouse Space Marine 2 takes me back to those days. The chaos of the overwhelming enemy numbers, the gore on screen at every moment, the slow and methodical movement and firing.
Skill cap in games: Another big component that this game doesn't have is that it's not designed to be played like an MLG quick-scoping game. I think that's something that a lot of average players are getting exhausted from. Every time a new video game comes out, they increase the skill cap for the game. For example, on Twitter, I saw something like "DS4 plus Windows plus new buff Black Ops movement is making nine-to-five old heads rage; they think I'm cheating." Watching the way this person is playing, it means people that have jobs are getting carsick. This looks [__]. What I'm saying is that people like this increase the skill cap for the game.
Games are becoming too fast and complex, making it hard for average players to keep up and enjoy.
Something that a lot of average players are getting exhausted from is that every time a new video game comes out, it increases the skill cap for the game massively. A good example of this can be seen on Twitter. For instance, DS4 plus Windows plus new buff Black Ops movement is making nine to five old heads rage; they think I'm cheating. These nine to five old heads, who have jobs, watch the way this person is playing and get frustrated. This unnecessary movement is making people feel like they are going to get car sick.
What I'm saying is that people like this increase the skill cap for the game and contrive the meta for the design of the game in that direction. Games like Space Marine don't have that problem as much because of how much slower they are. What ends up happening is that you have these games that become super hardcore and super fast. When that happens, there is so much unnecessary movement, and they try to make COD like Apex. This creates a huge skill gap, and now people without experience can't play the game with each other in the same way.
In games like Space Marine 2 or Gears of War, I feel like I'm playing chess with a mobile wood chipper. I'm shooting an enemy, pushing forward, executing one, turning around, throwing a grenade, switching weapons, using melee on a group, and picking up ammo. This reminds me of why I like the combat in games like Dark Souls, Dragon's Dogma, and Monster Hunter. The combat in these games is slow, methodical, and planned. Even if there is a skill gap, a person can still feel good about playing the game because you occasionally get those big hits. It feels like there's more weight to it, and it's not hyper-fast or hyper-reaction based.
However, my only real criticism of the game is that the Dodge and Parry mechanics, as well as Ally NPC AI, seem to interrupt that flow. While I understand the goal they were going for, I don't really like the parry mechanic in this game. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me because different types of mobs have different parry timings. As I get better at the game, I might understand it more, but it feels harder to grasp.
I really enjoyed parrying small enemies that were about to jump on me; it was satisfying to see me kill them. However, some markers would show while others wouldn't, and since there isn't any animation canceling on higher difficulties, any mistakes you make are punished heavily.
Playing with friends transforms a frustrating game into a fun and memorable experience.
This game doesn't really make a lot of sense to me. I feel like parries interact differently with each other, and the same types of mobs do different parries. So yeah, I'm not really a big fan of it either. Skill issue? Well, yeah, as I get better at the game, I would understand it more, but I just feel like it's harder to understand. It doesn't really make sense because there are different parry timings for each one or the combat operations unlock different weapons.
I really enjoyed parrying small enemies that were about to jump on me; it was really satisfying to see me kill them. But some markers would show while others wouldn't. Since there isn't any animation canceling on higher difficulties, any mistakes you make are punished heavily. Accidentally parrying when you need to dodge, even if there's enough time for you to react to your mistake before the enemy's attack resolves, you won't be able to because you're still in the animation of parrying or using a melee attack. This wouldn't be as taxing if the AI was more helpful. The AI was moderately helpful, but I always found them shooting at enemies that hadn't even hit the battlefield yet. They're completely useless when you're defending objectives; they stand still after they stun an enemy and ultimately serve as no distraction or help when you're being attacked.
I'm going to be honest, I was down bad so much playing this game I didn't even notice the AI. I didn't even know what they were doing because I was one hit from death, trying desperately to stay alive. I didn't even notice them act by vast waves of enemies. I know what they were going for here because, one, you're a Space Marine, not an acrobat, and two, the game is obviously tuned for multiplayer and not single player. Once you have one or two friends in the group, the game transforms. The pace evens out, and any major issues you have seem to disappear immediately.
I'm reminded of the times back from 2004 to 2010 when you would go out to buy games specifically just to play with friends: Army of Two, Kane & Lynch, Halo, Gears of War, Resident Evil 5, and The Club. These social co-op experiences are best enjoyed either on the couch or online with friends or co-workers. Halo campaign is probably the best example of that for me. Growing up, playing the Halo campaign was huge. My friend would hop in and play, and it was like nothing changed. We bantered back and forth, making fun of one another, brewing out over cut scenes, communicating strategies, and jokingly role-playing as we cut through waves of enemies.
This is one of the reasons why I believe Helldivers 2 blew up when it did. So many games are competitive now. Helldivers captures an aesthetic and a vibe. In the same way that Star Wars Outlaw had a negative aura, Helldivers and Space Marine 2 have a positive aura. That aura attracts people because the environment just feels fun. Almost all of the media is so polarized and oppositional that you can't even escape it in the first place. As such, I think it's starting to create a growing hunger within players and consumers for things that lean more into community and camaraderie.
A lot of people playing online multiplayer games want to have social experiences. That's why they're playing an online multiplayer game. So if you have a game that's an online multiplayer game and it doesn't create a sense of camaraderie and a sense of shared space, why is it an online multiplayer game? What's the point? By and large, in part due to Triple-A's push into live service, they all want to make their money-printing machines. We all know that competitive games seem to be the best at doing that. But with that said, I just haven't seen a lot of games that have done anything like this over the last few years. More games are getting away from this cooperative nature and cooperative play.
Think about it: Halo 5 and Halo Infinite didn't even have couch co-op or split-screen. Halo, of all games! That's 343, and that's a whole other problem in and of itself. But I don't know how Microsoft hasn't fired that whole studio. How is it that you can take the flagship product, Halo, and not include these features? They literally named their AI assistant Cortana. Halo is Xbox. How do you let someone make three...
Space Marine 2 brings back the joy of simple, fun gaming without the grind.
A's push into live service is evident as they all want to create their money-printing machines. We all know that competitive games seem to be the best at achieving that. However, I haven't seen many games that have done anything like this over the last few years. More games are moving away from cooperative nature and cooperative play. Think about it: Halo 5 and Halo Infinite didn't even have couch co-op or split screen. Halo, of all games, mind you—that's 343, and that's a whole other problem in and of itself. I don't know how Microsoft hasn't fired that whole studio. How is it that you can take the flagship product, Halo, and let someone make three bad games? They can't keep getting away with it.
With that said, Space Marine 2 just feels like a pure video game, unpolluted. There's no drawn-out exposition; it's not trying to put me on long grinds or chases or anything like that. It's just calling back to something that I think we've lost and haven't had for a long time. It feels like a game that came out in 2010—just good, dumb fun. Space Marine 2 isn't trying to do anything that hasn't been done; it's just a simple and fun video game.
While there are definitely some examples in recent memory, I can't help but feel that we just don't get a whole lot of games like this anymore. Part of it is likely due to the industry's overwhelming push into live service—a trend that I think is being bucked by the most successful games over the past few years. There are live service components of Space Marine 2, and that's a good thing because people like the multiplayer. My criticism for the multiplayer is that I think the missions take too long. I would like it if they were half the length they are now because each session time feels too long. But overall, I had fun playing the game. It's been a long time since I've played a game that felt so consumable—a game that, once I started playing it, I never once thought about whether or not I'd actually have the time to finish it, how long it would take me to finish, or if I would fall behind in content or forget mechanics if I walked away from it. It's just simple, dumb fun with no strings attached.
I do think that over time, this will become a problem because, in the same way that Helldivers 2 was really popular for a while due to its simplicity, I think Space Marine 2 will not have the same problem. This is because it actually has a progression system that is power-based, unlike Helldivers 2. Back in the 360 days of achievement hunting, most games were fun, memorable, and easy to consume—Def Jam: Fight for NY, Burnout, Need For Speed: Most Wanted, King Kong, Marvel: Ultimate Alliance, The Darkness, Army of Two, Brutal Legend. None of these games were kings of that era, but they were the supporting cast that made gaming feel so worthwhile at the time.
Another good point is that every game wants to be your main game, and that's a huge problem with modern live service games. Every game requires a certain amount of time investment per week, and very few games offer good catch-up mechanics or make players feel like they're not falling behind when they're not playing. What happens to me, and many others, is that once I get out of the habit of playing a live service game, I stay out of the habit longer. It's harder to get back into the habit because of the FOMO (fear of missing out). The FOMO acts as a barrier, making it harder to get out of the game but also harder to get back into it.
While there were certainly garbage games, there were also many middle-industry titles of little critical renown that were worth your money and didn't make you feel like every single game you needed to buy was "the game." Sometimes, it was good just to play a game. One of my fondest memories back then was a little-known game called 50 Cent: Blood on the Sand, where you played as 50 Cent and the G-Unit. You played a concert in the Middle East where you were promised a $10 million diamond-encrusted skull upon completion. Some gang members steal it, and now you and the G-Unit are on a mission to get what's yours. Absolute [ __ ].
Games today try too hard to be cinematic masterpieces, but sometimes all you need is dumb fun.
FOMO acts as a barrier, but that barrier goes both ways. It's harder to get out of the game, but it's also harder to get back into it. There were a share of garbage games, but there were so many middle industry titles of little critical renown that were worth your money and didn't make you feel like every single game that you needed to buy was the game. Sometimes it was good just to play a game. One of my fondest memories back then was this little-known game called 50 Cent Blood In The Sand. You played as 50 Cent and the G-Unit, performing a concert in the Middle East where you were promised a 10 million diamond-encrusted skull upon completion. Some gang members steal it, and now you and the G-Unit are on a mission to get what's yours. Absolute cinema. There you go, the goat game.
It's just funny, right? And I think that's another issue. It's like the theater kid thing we were talking about the other day. Everybody thinks they can make their art, put their voice out there, and write this super complex, nuanced story that everybody is going to respect and understand. They want to be seen for the artists that they are. It's like the guy that made The Last of Us, Neil Druckmann. I think a lot of game developers want to be like directors of movies. It's pretentious, so pretentious it's obnoxious. The weird thing is that a lot of the stories written by people are by some of the least pretentious individuals. It's just theater kid behavior. They want to be seen as an auteur, an artist, established and respected.
Ever since Scorsese made the comment that video games can't be seen like movies, developers have been trying to make games more cinematic, to the point of actually hiring and motion-capturing actors. Motion capturing has been popular for a long time. The people making these games and writing these stories want to be seen like Scorsese, Steven Spielberg, or Christopher Nolan. The funny thing is, the one actually seen that way is Kojima. People see Kojima like that to a larger extent, and he doesn't act pretentious at all. He's goofy and doesn't take himself seriously. He cares about gameplay first. Some might think he's pretentious, but not in an obnoxious way.
50 Cent Blood In The Sand was a stupid, funny third-person shooter that had no right being as fun as it was. It adapted mechanics from The Club, where bonus objectives would randomly pop up like blowing up barrels or getting a certain amount of headshots, making you and your friend race to see who could achieve the goal first and rack up a higher score at the end of the run. It's the same thing about Metal Gear Rising, where Raiden puts on a sombrero and poncho, and he's going in like a manhole cover. Two Mexicans see him, and he's like "Adios amigos" and just goes down the hole. What the heck? But it's just funny, so good, dumb fun. It didn't feel like a game made by a studio that had everything riding on the line. It came from a time where, as a player, I didn't feel like everything was riding on every purchase I made.
I think that's one of the problems we have today, that feeling of finality with every purchase. This was one of my favorite parts of the campaign: this giant dragon that everyone assumed would be the last boss of the game. Then, the dragon is like, "In the name of the emperor, I cast you down." And it's dead. Okay, nope, that's done. That feeling of finality with every purchase, the sense that every single game...
We need to get back to a time where we could simply buy a game, play it, and walk away feeling satisfied, not every purchase should feel like a lifelong commitment.
The game was funny and so good, a perfect example of dumb fun. It didn't feel like a game made by a studio with everything riding on the line. It came from a time where, as a player, I didn't feel like everything was riding on every purchase I made. One of the problems today is that feeling of finality with every purchase. This was one of my favorite parts of the campaign: a giant dragon that everyone assumed would be the last boss of the game. Then, the dragon is cast down in the name of the emperor, and it's dead. That feeling of finality with every purchase is a problem. There's a sense that every single game has to be the one. This shift comes from both the industry's approach and our view of what games are today.
People want forever games, games they can invest a thousand hours in and feel like they haven't wasted their time. This demand for massive, extensive, live service games is something companies struggle to deliver at the rate players want. There's pressure for every game to be a massive hit. For example, people want that game they played constantly, like Halo 2, Gears of War, Smash Bros., or World of Warcraft. WoW set the standard for these forever games, and recently, Fortnite has set the standard for live service games. However, developers have learned all the wrong lessons from Fortnite. Games are now treated like services, and players see every purchase as an investment rather than just a chance to have fun. It's exhausting.
Somewhere along the way, we lost the middle ground—those mid-tier games that weren't trying to be the biggest thing in gaming but were good, fulfilling experiences worth our money. Games like Enshrouded and Power World are good examples of this. They are middle-of-the-road survival games that are fun, honest, direct, and good. Look at Core Keeper, for example. Core Keeper is a simple base game that's fun to play. It doesn't need to be a massive live service game that you have to play regularly. It's fun at its core. I left the game on overnight for a couple of days and haven't put 71 hours into it. I only killed three bosses, so imagine if I spent 71 hours and only killed three bosses—I’d be garbage.
We need to get back to a time where we could simply play a game, buy it, play it, and walk away feeling satisfied. Not every purchase should feel like a lifelong commitment. Sometimes, it's good to just enjoy a game. People talk about their relationship with a video game like it's a person, saying they had to stop because it got toxic. Just stop playing the game. I was like that with WoW for a long time, but as soon as I stopped playing WoW as my job and started playing it for fun, my enjoyment of the game went up massively.
When you stop treating video games like a lifelong commitment, you start enjoying them more.
Sometimes it's good to just enjoy video games without feeling like a commitment for life. You see this especially with live service games, where people talk about their relationship with a video game like it's a person. They say things like, "I just had to stop, I couldn't control myself, it just got toxic, and I was logging on every day." My reaction is often, "What the [__] is wrong with you? Just stop playing the game."
I experienced something similar with World of Warcraft (WoW) for a long time. When I stopped playing WoW as if it were my job—not literally as a streamer, but with that mindset—my enjoyment of the game increased massively. Although I have negative sentiments about the direction the game has gone, I'm not angry about it. It's the same with Diablo 4; if a patch isn't good, I just think, "Oh, okay, I'll come back later." Every live service game wants you to feel like it's a [__] marriage, but I don't think that's necessary. WoW is not my game anymore.
When you stop being emotionally invested in a video game, your perspective changes. You don't want to give it all your time, and that's a good thing. For example, Space Marine 2 is a game I played, enjoyed, and will go back to play more with friends. Another recent example is Grand Blue Fantasy Relink, which is a solid game by itself with great PvE content. However, I don't feel committed or locked down to it, and I think that feeling comes from the industry itself. Players can feel the pressure that studios exert on their employees and games due to mismanagement of money and poor investment strategies.
Studios often focus on things that players don't care about, like graphics, instead of the overall vibe of the game. Space Marine 2 could have had better designs, but the vibes are good, and you feel good playing it. On the other hand, when I played Star Wars Outlaws, it felt like work. I stream every day because I love it, but streaming Star Wars Outlaws made me feel like I had a job. I thought, "Is this what it feels like to have a job? Do people have to do this for 8 hours a day?" It was mind-numbing.
Vibes matter a lot in games. There's also a lot of discussion about game prices needing to go up, with some talking about $100 games. $70 is a lot of money, and players feel the pressure because we're spending so much on these games. That's why I mostly buy Indie and AA games; there's more price flexibility. For example, I spent $15 on Core Keepers and put over 100 hours into it. I got way more value from this game than from many AAA games like Star Wars Outlaws.
Games don't have to be massive AAA experiences to be enjoyable. Dave the Diver is another example; although I haven't played it myself, I've watched others play it, and it looks enjoyable. The flexibility in pricing and the overall vibe of the game can make a huge difference in how much we enjoy and invest in them.
Indie and mid-tier games often offer better value and creativity compared to big-budget AAA titles.
I'm on the side asking for more flexibility. It's one of the reasons why I mostly buy Indie, Double-A, and Single-A games; there's a lot of price flexibility there. More times than not, I end up getting a way better deal for the money that I spent. For example, I spent like $15 on Core Keepers and put over 100 hours into it. Even if I'm not at 70 hours, I'm probably at about 20 or 30 hours at most in Core Keeper, and I definitely got way more value out of this game than I did out of Star Wars Outlaw and many other AAA games as well.
A lot of games that play well don't necessarily have to be these AAA massive experiences. Have you played Dave the Diver? I watched someone play it a lot, but I didn't play it myself. For games priced at $70, when they are not AAA, like Astro Bot, I haven't played it yet, but I will. I'm trying to see if there's another example of a game that's kind of like this. In general, my experience is that big studios' business models don't work unless they hit a home run. This business model can't last because eventually, you're going to have something that underperforms. When you heavily invest this much into individual projects, you will eventually hit a speed bump and fall off.
I spent $5 on Terraria at one point and have like 1,200 hours in that. I want to see more flexibility in experiences and prices, but we just don't seem to have that as much as we used to. I desperately want to go back to the days of junk food games, where even some of these AAA studios would put out games that would be more like middle-tier releases. Space Marine 2 kind of feels like that. Don't take any offense to this, but this doesn't feel like a game of the year candidate because it's not doing anything extravagant or incredible or different than anybody else, other than the fact that it's using themes that apparently people are well, it has male characters in it, which is different than most other modern games nowadays. But other than that, in terms of game mechanics and gameplay, Space Marine 2 isn't massively innovative or anything like that.
With that said, it's just a good game. It's just a damn good game, and that's it, and it's worth the money. I'm sick and tired of games that are coming out, and you know what I'm sick and tired of? I'm tired of people judging games based on how long they played the game and the value. I hate that because what that does is it tells developers, "Oh, you want more collectibles?" and it's like you loot something, and it gives you an achievement, and then it says one out of 500.
Games feel like they need to be the ones that send a message, change our minds, tell extravagant stories, and do something that nobody's ever done before. While I do think there's a place for those games and I still want to see them, the problem is that almost every single game feels like it wants to be that game now, and there's just not enough room or creativity for that matter. I'm looking at you, you know who you are. There's a lot of them.
Anyway, that's all I have for the video. I want more games like Space Marine 2. I want more junk food games, and I'm not afraid to say it. I hope you guys enjoyed the video. If you did, subscribe to the channel, like the video, and share it with your friends. Follow me on Twitch; I'm trying to get to 10K followers. I got 100K here, let's get to 10K there. Stay cool, stay righteous, stay safe, my friends, and hail the emperor. Peace.
I could not agree more with this video. I really like, I'm going to be honest, guys, I feel like the allergic to stoicism thing just hit me so hard because that's why Master Chief was so cool. He's a badass guy; he knows what the hell he's doing, he's smart, he's competent, and he doesn't act like a []. Right, the silent MC. It's all this self-indulgent emotional [] that's so obnoxious. Give the video a like. I completely agree with this, and I hope to see more games like Space Marine 2.
Authentic representation in games comes naturally, but forced diversity feels inauthentic and misses the mark.
I could not agree more with this video. I'm going to be honest, guys, I feel like the concept of being "allergic to stoicism" hit me so hard. Master Chief was so cool because he's a badass guy who knows what he's doing. He's smart, competent, and doesn't act like a []. The silent MC is exactly right. It's all this self-indulgent emotional [] that's so obnoxious. Give the video a like; I completely agree with this and hope to see more games like Space Marine 2. After the success of games like Space Marine 2 and Hell Divers, I think we will see more games that capitalize on that audience. There's always going to be negativity about how it's toxic to do that, but at the end of the day, if a game sells copies, that's what will matter most.
Imagine if Space Marine 2 added LGBT colors or a flag. I don't think people would really care about that. People don't care about representation; they care about the attitude of the people who put in representation. Usually, representation in video games comes naturally. If you look at old video games or go to a gaming convention, you'll see a lot of diversity. Many of you have played online games where your team wasn't comprised of people who looked like you. It might have been all guys, but they could have been from different ethnic backgrounds. That's always been how it was, and that's a good thing. When you try to force something that happens naturally, the people who feel the need to force it are the ones who understand it the least. That's the problem many games have when they try to push different types of diversity; they have the weirdest and most contrived views on it.
I played Tera, and my entire guild was diverse. You get very used to this. Woke YouTubers, is Bell woke? Oh God, I'm not going to look at this right now. I think it's funny. The gay character with an attitude—remember what they took from us? If you have characters like that, it's very exhausting because the people who push that stuff are simply not interesting. They're not funny; they're boring. I don't care about the [__] flag. I don't think anybody actually cares about a lot of representation. By that, I mean nobody views it as a negative, but the people who try to push it make it seem like a negative. They do it in a way that's self-aggrandizing and comes off as extremely inauthentic.
Whenever you see a character added by a super progressive developer, and their special ability is based on a stereotype, it's ridiculous. For example, the Concord character's special ability was running fast, which is a black stereotype. How do you do this? That's the problem. Robon in Final Fantasy 14 was a gigachad. People don't really care a lot about the sexuality of video game characters. Those who do are not the ones playing the games; they're mainly looking for a reason to complain or get mad.
The point I'm making is that a lot of people who write characters like that don't actually interact with minorities in real life. They probably grew up in sheltered, privileged, upper-middle-class lifestyles, so their ideas of minorities are stereotypes. The only way they can understand interacting with minorities is through the inverse of the stereotypes that exist. They don't have a lot of experience with actual people from these groups, so they create what they think a person from this group would act like. It's out of touch. These people are socially [__], which is how racism is born. They are racist; they just don't realize it.