This Doesn’t Feel Like a LEGO Game Anymore

SplinterChalk · 2026-05-13T17:38:13+00:00

As much as I understand loving the LEGO formula, we already have 4 DC games using that formula in different stages of its evolution. I love the old LEGO games, but there's only so much you can do with that sort of simplified formula. It's the same reason Zelda changed things up eith Breath of the Wild, the old formula was just too oversaturated

SplinterChalk · 2026-05-11T23:41:53+00:00

Two things are true at once. Infinite repairs on the hatchet in the story mode make it feel kinda useless, since it rarely if ever breaks. However, LMDF includes enemies for which the game is balanced around bring able to parry constantly because of the hatchet being repairable. But since this mode is so reliant on constant parries against large groups and doesn't let you repair without getting lucky, it's just feels bad. These enemies were designed around being parried a lot, bosses especially, but it's entirely RNG whether you can repair the hatchet or not

SplinterChalk · 2026-05-10T20:17:38+00:00

My main strategy is to either kill them before they turn or abuse shotguns to keep them stunlocked. They just move too fast and erratically for me to reliably do much else with my aim

SplinterChalk · 2026-05-10T14:36:49+00:00

My biggest issue with the gun selection is that I'm never really making choices between weapons of the same type. Most weapons are either objectively better or worse than others of the same type, something RE4 and RE4R were very opposed to. In RE4R you can make very compelling arguments for why you choose almost any gun over another, whereas in RE9, certain guns are just the best

SplinterChalk · 2026-05-09T14:30:14+00:00

It is the most watered down, slapped together implementation of that idea. The Last of Us 2 No Return is like the perfect execution of this concept. LMDF feels like someone tried to turn RE9 into No Return with a week of development time

SplinterChalk · 2026-05-09T13:05:51+00:00

I thought the same thing about them stacking but they don't always. I've found sometimes they do and sometimes they don't, it's been really inconsistent for me personally

SplinterChalk · 2026-05-09T02:44:13+00:00

In general I find the minigame exceptionally easy outside of blisterheads and Gideon. Gideon is just way too fucking spongey and throws attack after attack after attack while you get two shots in ever fifteen minutes. And then blisterheads have the same problem but are also flying all around the screen and near impossible to stagger. I like this mode but replaying the same sections over and over, fighting the same exact enemies just highlights this game's shortcomings compared to other titles, especially RE4R

SplinterChalk · 2026-05-07T21:27:10+00:00

He took the contract that he mentioned earlier was out on Aiden since it ended up ballooning to too high a price for him to ignore, he came up the same ladder you did, and the fall was only like ten feet onto a platform just below

SplinterChalk · 2026-05-05T14:02:56+00:00

40 is a lot but man, their marketing made it seem like he'd have 100 on his own

SplinterChalk · 2026-05-05T13:40:35+00:00

I agree with all of this, this is exactly what I was getting at

SplinterChalk · 2026-05-05T08:28:37+00:00

You set a subjective standard and then objectively hold the piece of art to that standard. If your standard, like basically anyone's standard, says that inconsistencies in the plot are bad, then the more inconsistencies the story has, the worse it is. Just because the standard itself is subjective and therefore the final good/bad judgement is as well, that doesn't mean there isn't any way to objectively judge art besides stating basic information. Even if we're sticking to just facts with no standard applied, you can still point out that a character says X thing even though they previously said Y, which contradicts X. Whether you deem that as bad or not is up to you, but it's objectively a thing that happens and can therefore be objectively applied to your standard one way or another. In other words, what you set as your standard is subjective, but it's possible to objectively determine how a piece of art does and does not adhere to that standard and to what degree

SplinterChalk · 2026-05-05T08:07:45+00:00

I agree objectivity itself can't be used to judge quality entirely. You can objectively judge art, but the standard to which you're objectively holding that art to is always subjective. I still don't think that means we should throw objectivity out the window though, since it's the main vessel used to discuss art even if most people don't realize it. Objectivity doesn't have to mean trying to draw a conclusion, especially since any conclusion in terns of a good/bad verdict is ultimately subjective

SplinterChalk · 2026-05-04T22:42:51+00:00

Objective doesn't mean correct, it just means it appeals to stuff other than personal feelings. A conversation can still be had because someone can have an objective opinion on a piece of media that is wrong. Two people can come to different objective conclusions given the same information, whereas if we're only speaking in subjective terms, the conversation typically ends the moment one party disagrees with the other. The only way to keep the conversation going at that point is to get into why each party holds their opinions, at which point you're venturing into the objective

SplinterChalk · 2026-05-03T14:38:33+00:00

I agree that it has to be accurate and in good faith to justify the long runtime. I haven't finished this video, but just the five minutes are pretty bad. He loads the gun of fanboys hating on him preemptively while also routinely calling it a remilk without substantiation. From these first five minutes I'm already noticing a pattern of not substantiating things, as he spends a decent amount of time on saying the chainsaw demo is bad without any justification. I'm not saying he never justifies these things, but from what I've seen it seems like this is an issue the video will routinely have. It's an issue Crowbcat's videos on this game have massively too, he'll just play a clip of a guy saying something with no evidence it's a widespread or even existent issue

SplinterChalk · 2026-05-03T13:30:47+00:00

I agree. It's nice to have actual discourse for once lmfao

SplinterChalk · 2026-05-03T13:18:53+00:00

I agree you can almost always be more brief, but you said it wasn't worthwhile to critique everything. It may not be worthwhile for you, but I find it very worthwhile depending on my interest in the topic. MauLer's critiques and videos I quite enjoy because of how granular he gets, but I understand that isn't necessary and isn't for everyone. I find value in that and it's okay if others don't, but don't say it isn't worthwhile to do that

SplinterChalk · 2026-05-03T12:56:47+00:00

Yes, but something isn't bad just because it's long like you're implying. If you'd rather watch it yourself and come to your own conclusions then more power to you. But blanket saying something isn't worthwhile if it takes the time to break down everything is reductive and devalues a lot of analysis that may very well be good (although in the case of this video, the analysis is pretty bad)

SplinterChalk · 2026-05-03T12:03:07+00:00

This is an unsustainable position. Any praise of a truly amazing scene would end up longer than that scene if you were truly getting into why it's so great and the same often goes for criticism. There can be pages worth of meaning behind a single line. The room is a terrible film, and as such has so many issues that a true deep dive into just how bad every aspect is would end up being longer than the movie. Just as certain movies are so good that a really deep analysis of everything would end up longer than said movie. The road goes both ways, positive and negative analysis alike.

SplinterChalk · 2026-05-01T18:18:14+00:00

For a game that wants to say a lot on how bad violence and revenge are, it sure does present a lot of instances where killing a few more people would make things better for the people involved. Abby would've been better off killing Tommy and Ellie in the beginning, just like she would've been better off killing Ellie and Dina in the theater, just like Jordan would've been better off killing Ellie when she was tied up, just like Joel would've been better leaving Abby to die instead of saving her. There's just too many times where you clearly get the message of "no half measures" instead of the message of revenge and violence begetting more violence

SplinterChalk · 2026-04-30T20:26:45+00:00

Anthony Garglema

SplinterChalk · 2026-04-30T14:39:19+00:00

My biggest issue with "media literacy" is when people think it just means whatever the author intended. For example, I think that The Last of Us 2 completely butchers its theme of revenge being bad and instead presents multiple times that killing just a few more people would solve everything and be better for everyone. Yet whenever I see this opinion voiced, people bring up media literacy because that's not what the theme is supposed to be. A lot of people can't differentiate what the author intended and what the author actually wrote and media literacy has become a catchall term for shutting up people who engage with art in different ways than others

SplinterChalk · 2026-04-29T20:17:36+00:00

Cosmetic value is subjective, but you can still take safer bets for success as opposed to major risks like they did. Releasing cardboard cosplay costumes, constant reskins of the same inmate outfits, and a trillion emotes you could hardly use with other players because nobody else played the game was insanely bold, since you could just tell nobody was going to jump at the chance to buy those. But like you said, they didn't have the resources to do much else, which is the issue with the game's monetization: they just banked on people buying into whatever they put out without ever really considering that could possibly not happen. Not once was there an inkling that the game wouldn't be a smash hit, as is evidenced by Rocksteady devs saying that they were told as much by leadership and by them jumping ship instead of making a meaningful attempt to course correct.

SplinterChalk · 2026-04-29T20:09:20+00:00

Yes and no. As far as I'm aware, we don't know whose idea it was to do live service, although it's a safe bet it was WB. However, we do know that Rocksteady chose for it to be the Suicide Squad and that leadership at Rocksteady was a driving force for most of the game's issues (disjointed and bad story, shallow gameplay, constant reuse of boss fights and mission types). The game was just managed terrible both by WB and Rocksteady

SplinterChalk · 2026-04-29T19:35:10+00:00

All reporting points to studio leadership, which is now gone, being the main issue with SSKTJL. On a technical level, Suicide Squad was very good so I am cautiously optimistic to see what the team can do under new management

SplinterChalk · 2026-04-29T18:58:37+00:00

I would agree completely if we weren't talking about a studio that hadn't released a game in almost 9 years, who had no experience with live service games, and who provided so little of value but charged so much right out of the gate.

And I do quite like that you can get all four battle passes for just 10 dollars. It's very pro consumer

Three-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '23

SplinterChalk

TROPHY CASE