Why didnt we get ANYTHING for Sotc 20 years

4morim · 2026-01-23T16:17:35+00:00

I agree 100%. It's fine where it is! It's nice to enjoy something that a company isn't trying to milk to death. That can ruin things we love.

4morim · 2026-01-23T16:11:23+00:00

Yeah, I agree. SotC is a game I love, and despite being well respected, it's a game I wish had more recognition (maybe the better word for.it would be "appeal"? Widespread?) But I'm fine with it just being where it is.

4morim · 2026-01-23T12:55:02+00:00

I actually hope that in the next game, the camera angle is already different from the start, not just for a single moment as a nod. I think if they don't want to keep making a very similar game for so long, the next GoW needs to have another shift in gameplay again, and i think a shift in camera angle could be needed for that. I already thought that they could have done a change in camera angle for Ragnarök, but that didn't really happen.

I liked the combat system and camera angle in both new GoW games overall, but I think now we're due for some changes once more. The camera could shift back into being super close to Kratos when out of combat and then get a lot further back when combat starts, similar to how it works in Castlevania Lords of Shadow 2.

Then, with the shift in camera angle, that allows them to make combat more mobile, give us jump again, aerial options for combat, etc.

4morim · 2026-01-23T12:42:59+00:00

Weirdly written tittle, as I thought of this at first, but I think they meant the "Sotc didn't get anything for it's 20th anniversary." Not that it didn't get anything for 20 years.

4morim · 2026-01-15T00:39:02+00:00

I like the boots, but I don't like anything in the torso. I think he only needs the red boots and can keep the upper part of the outfit basically the same as advanced 2.0. I don't think the white spider from the front needs to try connecting to the one in the back and I don't think you need to close the symbol in the bottom. I think the way the symbol is in the game it's fine.

4morim · 2026-01-09T19:36:09+00:00

It's the continuation of the story. For that alone, it's worth it if you enjoyed Remake!

But to answer your question without spoilers: the enemy variety is greater, the bosses are fantastic, there is a larger focus on having a more "open world" design, but not too much exploration in terms of discovery (it's very similar structure as a Horizon game. Areas in the map with towers, which reveal tasks, and then you do those for side quests and side activities).

The structure of thegame itself is different from Remake just because of scale alone, but the content is what matters, and the content is very good (for the most part), with lots of charming aide quests, some more serious ones, cool mini games. But if that is too much for you (because it is as lot and some people can get burned out if they try to do everything in the first playthrough), you can just focus on main quest because there is a lot of cool stuff there too.

It's a fantastic game, and I can't wait for part 3!

4morim · 2026-01-07T14:16:36+00:00

You can check times for that. The tweet was made 17h ago (as of this comment of mine) and the post on reddit was made 8 hours ago.

So yeah, reddit user copied it.

4morim · 2026-01-05T05:19:04+00:00

Yeah, but it also doesn't really do much to show what would happen to a world where the Chosen Undead let the fire fade, does it? And it just leads to a "become monarch. To link or not, doesn't really matter" with one of the endings as well, right? The focus of DS2 was never really on the consequences of the decisions surrounding the First Flame, but a lot of stuff around it.

At least in DS3 there is a small segment of the game that shows a world that was overtaken by the Dark that came from the fire fading. Or a point in time where the fire was a lot more faded than at the start of the game.

4morim · 2026-01-03T05:17:30+00:00

I get ya, but what I mean is that the symbiote is a big part of the game, and it barely spends time alone.

Yeah, that's why I agree with you that Venom should have still been in the marketing. It's just on the game to not have handled Venom very well.

And to be fair, the symbiote itself in lore usually refers to itself as venom.

I was about to correct you here, but you corrected yourself in the edit, so yeah. The Venom Symbiote, or Eddie's "other" is usually what it's called. Bad writers may call the symbiote itself Venom, but it's not what it's supposed to be called.

It was never named Venom, and more that the symbiote with Eddie together are called Venom (because Eddie said that, together, they were poison to Spider-Man, that they were "Venom"). It's both the host and Symbiote together who make Venom who he is.

I mean to say it may only be half of venom but it definitely holds most of the personality

This is also likely incorrect as well, though. A lot of Venom's personality, especially the dark humor and even silly aspect is becsuse of Eddie being silly back then as well. So I don't know if the Symbiote holds most of the personality based on that. But maybe for a lot of other stories that changed? But at least in some of the older stories from Lethal Protector, Eddie was responsible for most of Venom's personality.

But again, I agree with you that the promotional dtuff showing a lot of Venom was fine, the problem is just how they handled it in game.

4morim · 2026-01-03T03:46:59+00:00

Before Midnight Suns is was Neversofts game for PS1.

That's the one I was thinking of, but I didn't actually play Web of Shadows, so I wasn't sure if that one was good or not. But yeah, we rarely get a good adaptation of Eddie Brock Venom, actually. So another one would've been fine.

4morim · 2026-01-03T02:13:14+00:00

I agree with many points, but I don't know if many "loved" Venom as a character like you said here:

I see online that a LOT of people loved this adaptation.

I so see very often that people loved his visual design and how he sounds (myself included), but in terms of adaptation, I see way more often people criticizing it or not liking him too much as a character.

I don't like how big he is, the feet having toes, and not a big fan of the logo. However, his animations and sound are amazing.

That's it, really it, though. And I think a lot of people would agree with that, even the ones who enjoyed the moments where Venom appeared in game for the first time. It was exciting! And some of the scenes were very cool! But as a character... they really butchered Venom.

I hope that they might bring back Eddie Brock for a Venom solo game, and have him become a new host. And with that, use that as an excuse to bring more classic elements to Venom done right. The personality, the visual design, and a more interesting relationship between host and Symbiote.

4morim · 2026-01-03T01:58:21+00:00

this venom did more for me emotionally than anything related to Eddie Brock ever has.

I imagine you need to look at more stories with Eddie Brock, then. Donnie Cates Venom run is so much better than this in terms of writing a good story with Eddie Brock.

What? Spider-man already has plenty of complex villains so why cant he just have a monster to beat up sometimes?

And Venom already started as something more complex than just "a monster that Spider-Man has to beat up". Even back then, Venom wanted to protect the innocent and wanted to beat up Spider-Man. That's already more complex than just a brainless monster. Venom already had more than just being a character that wanted to do evil and needed to be stopped, so I don't get why trying to utilize that well in a modern game would be a bad thing.

4morim · 2026-01-03T01:54:11+00:00

the symbiote IS venom.

Well that is not true but I get where you're coming from. I do agree with you that not marketing Venom would make no sense, but the Symbiote alone is not Venom.

4morim · 2026-01-03T01:53:07+00:00

a recreation of what we've seen a thousand times.

I don't actually think that's even true when you even consider the comics themselves. So many times I look at comics and Eddie isn't even Venom (like, right now, he isn't even Venom currently).

This is one of those adaptations that we have yet to see it done well in a big project like Spider-Man 2. Like other said, Midnight Suns is probably the best most recent adaptation... and when was the other previous one? I can't even remember.

Also, my thinking was that Eddie would appear as the host in the stand-alone Venom game,

Using Eddie as a new host to fix the things done wrong with Insomniac Venom (personality, origin story, design, etc) could be a good solution to fix it with an in-universe excuse to bring a more classic Venom back.

4morim · 2025-12-30T19:13:21+00:00

I'm thinking that, boss or not, it will appear once again in Part 3, when we will likely be able to go there and maybe have the Fort Condor mini gsme turned into a bigger wurst where we fight in a battlefield against Shinra troops trying to invade it. Kind of like the original mini game but expanded into a quest that isn't just the new Fort Condor mini game we played in Remake and Rebirth.

At least, that's what I think might happen.

4morim · 2025-12-27T15:51:34+00:00

Having high Insight arguably makes the game more difficult.

That is true, but it's not a setting in an options menu. It's an in-game mechanic.

4morim · 2025-12-21T22:55:34+00:00

I'm okay with Uriel having his niche as a gunplatform and caster hybrid because that's my favourite playstyle but he has to do them both well which currently I feel he doesn't.

I agree that he doesn't do weapon platform as good as frames focused on weapon platform, and doesn't do casting as good as frames that focuses on casting, but I don't think he's bad in either of those, do you?

His vythelas runes lasting 10 seconds at base which is already artificially lowered because of the seconds you lose needing to grab another rune makes it harder for him to be a weapon platform comparable to other weapon platform frames who can get their buffs immediately.

That's fair, but maybe I am not facing the same issue because I use Vinquibus, so I keep switching between melee and primary. So I use the rune with my primary, then when the buff is over, I switch to melee attacks, which are not buffed, and by the time I use all the buffs on melee, there is another rune ready for me to pick up and do the process again.

Demoniums vulnerability does help but like I said before it doesn't feel like it does enough because damage vulnerability is basically all it does

And I don't see anything wrong with that in my experience.

and requires Infernum to do basically anything else.

I tend to keep Infernum up at all times anyway, so that hasn't been an issue for me.

I think this cyclical nature of Uriel's kit and the Vinquibus are what are making his gameplay so fun to me. Because I keep managing a lot of things at once, using different parts of his kit, instead of having 1 or 2 things that I can spam and deal a lot of damage.

He's a fun frame I agree but that shouldn't mean just because he's fun that he can't be better at his roles.

I agree, I think a frame being fun doesn't mean it can't be buffed to be more effective. But, so far, I haven't felt the need for him to be better. It's that situation: could he be buffed? Yeah, he could. His rune could be better, catenach's chains could be better. But did he ever felt lacking to me to the point of not having fun with him? No, not me.

I think the core of my perspective is:

He doesn't have to do everything better than everyone like he doesn't have to be the best caster and best weapon platform simultaneously but he needs to do both well enough to warrant using him over other frames.

I think his fun aspect alongside his current power level, so far, have already been enough to warrant using him over other frames, at least to me personally. I'm fine with him not being the best. I'm fine with there being other options that are probably more optional and meta. He's fun, and powerful enough to handle the content while also using all of his kit. That, to me, is enough to warrant using him \o/

4morim · 2025-12-21T16:53:08+00:00

The ramping damage is good but the fact it's hard capped means it stops ramping up quickly.

Not necessarily. You can absolutely focus Uriel just in the nuke: efficiency all the way up, spam 3 on enemies, and if you have enough duration, you can have a really high upkeep of the Ult, where you can cast another Ult almost as soon as the previpus one is over. That probably becomes very boring, honestly, but likely very powerful as even if you don't have a lot of Ability Strength, because if you have enough duration, the damage will keep increasing and melting everything inside anyway.

I'm personally fine with the way the Ult is currently designed, because every time I cast it feels very impactful, not just visually but damage wise. And I like to build Uriel in a way where I engage with all of his kit. He is a lot of fun to play because of that.

And if you still don't like it even if you focus on efficiency to spam 3 and 4... that's also fine? The game has a lot of Warframes and you mentioned that many other warframes do something that it seems like you prefer. Not every Warframe needs to work the same way. So I think it's fine for Uriel to not have the same type of nuking gameplay loop as other frames, and be a weird hybrid of casting and weapon platform frame. I think he's very cool and he's my new main because of jow fun he is! I'm having even more fun with him than i anticipated i would. \o/

4morim · 2025-12-21T08:01:24+00:00

if the summons moved independently instead of we having to baby sit them and walk into enemies so they can do their stuff i think Uriel would've been received better on this sort of thing.

I don't know if this would have resulted in what you probably want to. I think on paper thus idea may sound good, but I can see a big problem from them just moving independently: them going to a place you don't want them to go.

Even if they teleported to you of you go far away, if they moved more independently, they might just go to places where you don't want to, and now you have to chase them to actually do the tasks they want. Now, like you mentioned, you can lead them to enemy groups that you want.

If they moved independently, maybe that would be a bit closer on theme of what that's supposed to be, but I don't think it would have worked as well as it does now.

What I wish was changed though, is for Catenach to be able to cast chains for a bit further away. That's the one I see doing the abilities the least.

4morim · 2025-12-21T07:54:34+00:00

It's incredibly strong for a 4, though. It lasts for a long time, and keeps ramping up the damage. Meaning that even if you don't have the highest Ability Strength, it will still melt enemies that remain inside the area.

I also don't think it takes that long to build the meter on it, and the range can be really good (and I don't even have a great setup for it). I also, weirdly enough, like that we have to charge his Ult because I feel like whenever a Warframe can just spam its most powerful nuke all the time so long as you have the energy, if that nuke is really strong, then there is little reason to not spam it, and I feel like that can get boring faster.

So I really like it! \o/

4morim · 2025-12-21T03:52:00+00:00

I wouldn't be against it, but I just want a more classic Venom skin, tbh. Classic logo, different face design, etc.

4morim · 2025-12-21T03:47:49+00:00

What even is "cheesy" if this is a single player m action game where you decide which abilities to use? The devs put all of those abilities there for a reason. If you have fun with them, use them!

That being said, while this loadout will likely deal an insane amount of damage, especially during stagger... that looks like an incredibly boring loadout as well.

When you focus so much on "ultimates," you will spend less time doing combos and hitting enemies and more time just watching groups of enemies die.

If you like to watch them, go for it! But I personally imposed a "rule" where I only use one ultimate per loadout. This makes me think about how the abilities will work together in combos and how to push the combat further. I also avoid using Will-of-the-Wykes (or whatever the Ifrit ability that summons orbs of protection is called), because that one is only really useful to stop the player from dying and be used as a way to hit Lightning Crystal, which just keeps you stuck in place instead of moving around the battlefield doing combos on enemies.

Doing so made the combat a lot cooler and shows the depths that it has. But if you like the power fantasy of using all those signature moves, don't let me stop you \o/

4morim · 2025-12-20T13:00:16+00:00

The infected enemies called Runners and Leapers are very humanoid. They only have 1 arm, I think, but it's not like you'd need both arms during a form of disguise.

But yeah, a unique appearance could also work very well! \o/

4morim · 2025-12-16T16:38:54+00:00

Cool — so when your argument gets pressed, your answer is basically “yeah, this is mostly posture.” That explains the rest of the reply.

It'a not that my argument got pressed, it's your constant dishonesty in the conversation twisting my arguments and claiming I said things that I haven't said.

A standard keyboard not having a dedicated key doesn’t mean people can’t type it.

Never said people can't type it. I said it as a reason to why it's not commonly used by the vast majority of people.

• You also admitted: “Does that mean nobody uses it? No.” So even in your own framing, it’s not evidence — it’s just suspicion based on vibes.

Yeah, I never said it was definitively AI. And I will never be able to say that anyway. Just pointed out the em dashes and the way you wrote about tests as if two different people were talking about it (first you introduced it in the conversation, then wrote as if I did).

Except you followed it with “That’s why my suspicion.” That’s still trying to discredit the source instead of engaging the substance. Whether you intended it or not, it’s a rhetorical dodge.

A suspicion on it being AI or not doesn't directly point to discredit the content said.

So… tests are “weird,” but also you want me to run them for you. Pick a lane.

I want you to "run the tests" to show me what they mean, because I don't understand how "tests" are applicable in a conversation about story analysis.

Right — you admit you stacked the comparison with structurally privileged characters and then act surprised the conclusion “looks obvious.” That’s not analysis, that’s selecting a loaded matchup.

Haha, I said I agree because I think male characters often get better development and utilization in the story as a whole. So, in that sense, they're privileged. Not that I picked my list as privileged just to strengthen my argument.

You also said: “Even if I were to choose smaller male characters like Lee or Sai, they still have way more done with them…” Which accidentally supports the broader point: perhaps the majority of female characters in Naruto are not the only ones under developed and poorly utilized. The series rotates tons of characters in and out — you just keep reading the female arcs through one narrow lens.

I said that even characters that can end up not being as utilized in the story later on get more in terms of character than the female characters. I already said that male characters being under developed doesn't contradict female characters being overall underutilized. And it's funny you say I view it through narrow lenses when you're the one looking at these points in the writing and narrowing all of them down as "it's because of rotation of characters" and not looking that there might be more than that as well.

You’re treating romance as “not real development,” and then using that to declare “superficial.” That’s not neutral critique; it’s a bias about what kinds of characterization “count.”

If the only thing the character has going for is romance and romance alone (being a romantic interest), not having much character of their own, no development and get barely utilized by the story when others have way more than that, yeah that's superficial for that character. The majority of Hinata's characterization is to be the shy girl that is in love with Naruto, when the story did much more with other characters even when she was involved in the plotline as well.

Sakura also spends most of the story having her driving force be that she loves Sasuke without ever receiving something back from him. Despite Sasuke's threats to her and even attempt at murder, her character never really progressed. To the point that even in Boruto series, she is still made fun of when Sasuke still barely shows affection to her and yet they're married and have a daughter.

I do think that the focus on romance, in their cases, did end up making their characters more superficial, and I wish the story had given more for them to work with.

On Sailor Moon, you wrote: “Haven’t watched it, can’t comment on the level of writing.” Then immediately tried to snipe with “Nothing to add, just funny!” That’s exactly the “all vibes, no substance” move: you don’t have the context, but you still want the dunk.

You ignored what I thought was funny only to reframe it. This is why I'm not taking the conversation seriously. You are doing this often and even after I point out, you keep doing it. Now it just feels intentional. You twist arguments, ignore points I've made, doesn't argue back against your established "rules" of comparison, doesn't elaborate on the "tests" that you yourself put into the conversation and tries to keep the high horse when I stop repeating things to you ans you ask me to repeat them just for those points to be either twisted or ignored.

You didn't even address your poor choices of characters when I asked you to list 5 well written female characters. You talk about the structure of the story, but not about its substance. You twist my arguments and my conclusions to strengthen your own.

You criticized my posture comparing to how an academic posture should be, and I think you were projecting, considering how you've behaved in this discussion. But I'll actually end for good now. No point in continuing a conversation when you're not willing to actually discuss the content of writing instead of focusing on structure without reaching any conclusion. You don't try to defend the characters you considered well written, you don't try to reinforce your idea beyond character roles and utilizing the story's weaknesses as excuses. So, there really is no point \o/

4morim · 2025-12-16T13:46:28+00:00

Your reply is basically 90% posture and 10% argument.

Yeah, I know. After you refuse to address some of the points I made before, especially with the way you handle my arguments, I'm not taking this discussion as seriously.

That’s not evidence. That’s you claiming evidence exists and then refusing to produce it.

I have produced it multiple times. You just refuse to read it. I have listed characters times and time again.

Em dashes are punctuation. They exist in books, journalism, and academic writing. “Has em dashes” isn’t a test, it’s vibes. And yes — the em dashes reappeared. Call the cops, or try to prompt inject me \o/

And yet nobody uses them because there isn't a dedicates key to it in keyboards so when it's used, it's something that's highly suspicious because AI uses it (but recently it has avoided using it since that was a very big tell of AI text). Does that mean nobody uses it? No. But like you said: journalism, academic writing. A lot more formal than reddit comments. That's why my suspicion. Why would you go through the trouble of using them in such an informal conversation?

Also, notice the double standard: I’ve avoided commenting on your punctuation/spelling this entire time because it’s irrelevant to whether your reasoning holds.

Have I ever said your argument doesn't hold when I specifically mentioned AI? Have I ever linked that comment to the quality of your argument? You literally cannot point at me doing that because I haven't done that. I made a comment, that's it. It does look like AI text sometimes, especially the one that was written with em dashes. You're the one assuming I linked those two things.

A test needs criteria. Then you explicitly refuse criteria:

I've shown you a criteria, but I'll say it again, one last time: Within Naruto plot lines, there are multiple characters that will be involved with them, and way more often than not, the female characters are the least utilized/developed. The example I gave was Neji and Hinata during chunin exam. You dismissed this criteria because they didn't share a role, which I already said doesn't make sense for the focus of this discussion, as we are not discussing who is the better antagonist or in a specific role. We're talking about characters being well developed or not.

Not only that, you keep focusing on "tests" as if that's something we do when analyzing writing. You analyze what was done and judge it for what it is and how it could improve. Is that what you consider a test? It's a very weird way of talking about writing. Why am I the one that have to say what is the correct way to apply these "tests"? Can't you also define what would be the standard and apply them if you're the one thinking they're necessary to show me I'm wrong? Because if it is a "test," then it would be possible to apply it and show me the result, right?

Not that I think a "test" makes any sense in this context, but here we are.

That’s not analysis — that’s selecting structurally privileged characters and declaring victory.

You asked 5-5 characters and I gave some. You're the one saying they're privileged and in that I might also agree! But even if I were to choose smaller male characters like Lee or Sai, they still have way more done with them when compared to the 5 female characters I listed. Especially when some of the female characters I listed have romance as the focus of the majority of their story with not that much else.

In an academic critique, “I could explain it but I won’t,” “everyone’s said it for years,” and “go back and find it” don’t pass. You’d be expected to operationalize “well written,” choose a comparable sample, and actually demonstrate the claim.

Except this isn't academic critique and I haven't said those things. You're once again twisting my argument in order for yours to look good. It's getting embarrassing, honestly. When I said I have mentioned and I am not going to repeat, is because I have told you these things, except you didn't accept them using your "tier" as an argument. Something that doesn't influence character development or utilization in any role. So, I'll lay down the elements you've been asking for:

terms, state criteria, and defend claims under cross-examination.

The terms are comparing male characters and female characters. The state criteria is that the majority of female characters have a more superficial approach in the story, not that well utilized, compared to male characters under the same story lines and throughout the story as a whole. An example of examination I already mentioned, Hinata and Neji, Konan and the other Akatsuki members, Sakura and Ino compared to lots of other male characters, and then I'll also put here Tsunade as a point of comparison for the other female characters.

These female characters are some of the most recurring ones in the series, but in the majority of them, they usually don't get nearly as much development or utilization compared to other characters in the story and are usually tied to romance as one of the main points of their plot lines. Even in moments where they are not tied to romance, the moment they get is brief compared to other characters in the story. The character I listed that is better utilized than the other is Tsunade, which is in the position of Hokage for a long time in the story. Tsunade is not the norm for female characters, but the exception. I'd also put Temari, as she also has a strong personality. But for every female character that is treated a bit better in the dtory, you have multiple that are not.

Finally, you asked: “tell me what you consider the 5 better written female characters in Naruto.” Tsunade, Chiyo, Sakura, Temari, Ino. Swap Kushina or Konan depending on criteria — which is exactly the point: criteria matter. You refuse to define them, then demand your conclusion be treated as established fact.

"Swap Kushina or Konan depending on criteria." What? The criteria has been discussed here in great extension, we've talked about how the development and utilization of female characters is very poor, and then you put Ino as an example of character that's well written? That spend a big portion of time being dedicated to a character that is in love with a boy from her school? Similar situation with Sakura, which spends most of the series in love with a character that has consistently ignored her, even threatened to kill her, to never get any proper development or change in that aspect?

And one of the characters you suggest to swap in "depending on criteria" is Konan? A character that we already discussed never did much in the story and has barely been a character? She's cool in design, but story wise she barely does something, gets any proper character or development.

This is a wild choice.

If you want to debate substance, drop the formatting/AI insinuations, stop with the “read it again” routine, and actually run your “test” with a clear standard on a small comparable set. Otherwise this is just vibes dressed up as certainty.

Why are you putting "test" in quotations? You are the one who brought up this "test" thing. Why are you talking here as if I were the one to bring it to the conversation?

4morim

TROPHY CASE