@@So_Viet8032 fr most were not fond of the "yapping" when the devs are simply just being passionate about their work... MrPokke's reaction stream was doable at least given he does understand CN
She's a "trope" that's been done before because she's literally been done before. She's the Raiden Mei expy she's not meant to be original, and based on the trailer she seems to be directly connected to Mei. Bro won't stop yapping.
it was one of the best if not the best livestream for this game and Necrit missed all the best parts because "zoomer brain", "too long", "yapping". At this point just react to ingame news that have tl:dr of it. smh
I think you didnt saw live chat on the stream. It was trully a yap fest bcs they were like "lets talk about aniversary but 1st lets talk 30min about smthing else"
I stop watching the dude since version 1.4 where he mostly doesn't even pay attention to the livestream, especially when they explain how new character works. Guess thing still haven't change back then huh
ah yes "too much gameplay in the overworld" u mean the fights we all try to skip and only do if we accidently get hit by them or the story makes us fight and half the time we do on full auto anyway yup losing so much gameplay also their reasoning isnt just it fits her character its also its fun
It's the little things. At the start I cleared everything I saw, all the battles were at 1x speed. Then you start giving in: "well I'm just farming exp, I might as well do 2x but I'll never 2x bosses." and by the time you realize you can never go back.
@@hazamax2139 exactly my experience i go back to 1x speed for new enemies or when i have a new character that has cool animations but if im just farming i stick to double speed
This dude shits on things immediately and then when gets proven wrong goes "oh ok". Maybe listen first before immediately jumping to conclusions on everything and shouting about the "balance of the game".
@@BlazeVE_404 To share his thoughts. Yea, okay. Generally you already know the content creator when you are clicking on an hour long reaction to a dev stream, because why would you click on some rando’s dev stream reaction when you already know 10+ CC’s that you enjoy and are reacting to the same thing? This isn’t a one minute trailer reaction that you can just binge 30 of. Why did I click on the video, you ask? To see Necrit’s reaction to Acheron’s ult specifically and the rest was background noise as I worked on my programming project. So anyways, now that your lame attempt at a uno reverse out of the way… does the OP want to admit that he came here, knowing what he was getting, just to be able to gripe about something? xD
We already fought Duke Inferno, but we haven't fought the others, and now that he's dead his children have no home to go back to, so now we can fix them. XD
@@gmoney9469 Yeah, but personality wise he was just a cartoon villain, and while that's fun and all, his children are more interesting and now that he's dead we have a way to encounter them and "fix" them more easily.
Better Gepard is debatable. Gepard's burst shields are better overall but have a build up because of an energy cost. Aventurine's are much smaller but can refresh and stack. Gepard gets to mitigate damage and negative effects entirely because his skill has a built in freeze that you can lock down high priority targets with. Aventurine has follow up attacks that build on getting hit but that also requires that the enemy is going to do something that is actually going to hit your team (think of enemies that charge their abilities for their next turn). People see the teamwide shield but don't contemplate on what makes both of each character effective at what they do. Gepard is a stall based Preservation unit much like how March 7th can pretty much AoE freeze the entire enemy team which has high turn order manipulation that lets you plan around your turns rather than reacting to them. Aventurine gives security in that his shields are constantly being up, but they are functionally less effective by comparison because he doesn't flat out negate a turn on demand. Depending on what the enemy affords you in a battle: if the enemy takes a bit to ramp up like in Swarm disaster, run Gepard so you can build his ultimate; if the enemy acts immediately and rushes you like Argenti or Phantyllia, use Aventurine. The current total shield value reported are 3:1 Gepard:Aventurine. Gepard applies about 3x the amount of shield for 3 upcoming turn on ult whereas Aventurine applies about 1/3 of Gepard's shield values incrementally but advanced. The real question is: Would you rather negate an enemy's turn entirely or would you rather have immediate mitigation?
As someone that hates characters dying out of nowhere I wonder what stories Necrit has watched or read that made him love it, because I've only seen it done right a few times, and I also love resurrection as a concept so I don't mind when they're brought back to live, probably because of Dragon Ball.
But dragon ball is precisely the opposite. Death is meaningless because resurrecting is overdone so there's no risks. I think people are just too... focused on this types of soft stories? "Oh man, this character died and there could still be more to that character to be explored." Yeah no shit Sherlock, death IS exactly that. If it feels like your characters have an invisible plot armor that makes them immortal then there are some people who are not gonna take your story seriously. In the latest book of the series one of my favorite characters died. A depressed ex drug addict in relapse who you see working his ass off to stop again, to be the better man that everyone around him knows he can be even when he himself can't see it. An inspiring story that gets cut short, a beautiful "death out of nowhere." because it's a serious story, there are stakes and at any point anyone, good side or bad side, can die. Death doesn't wait until you get the end of your character arc. And that was a character introduced all the way since book 1 out of, currently, 4. The reason a gut punch like that feels so good to the story is because it reminds you that the stakes are real. Resurrection itself isn't a bad thing to have in stories but it MUST come at a cost in order to not lose meaning the of death.
@@hazamax2139 I get you, I just feel like Necrit is constantly asking for it which just gets tiresome, I mean, just the fact that he's always trying to predict what's going to happen and ends up being wrong most of the time is tiresome on itself, but for me I just don't watch stories looking for characters to die, I do prefer softer stories, but I loved Arcane, even tho characters die there, but they were pretty much NPC level (except for 1), which Genshin and Star Rail do kill off, but for some reason they don't count for the people asking for death to happen, and the thing is that in a game of this type (gacha games), getting a cool character design just to kill said character will almost always feel shitty, since gacha games depend heavily on waifuism (and you don't want your waifu or husbando to die. XD), I know that character deaths can be satisfying, but if you asked me to choose I would rather they live, unless they have already achieved their life goal or something, Idk (I also enjoy a well made heroic sacrifice). Interestingly enough, I enjoy Limbus Company, which has both characters dying left and right, and a resurrection mechanic linked with the MC, but only the 12 sinners working under you can be revived and if the MC dies then they would be fucked.
@@xrosslegends1279to me, what feels good about it is that the world feels alive, in most stories/shows, the world only moves forward if the camera’s there, or if the player’s there, making character’s die off camera not only gives a potential uncertainty about their death (which can also lead to the resurrection trope you mentioned), but also leads to uncertainty of safety for those characters, as well as making you feel like « oh, the world doesn’t revolve around me », in video games at least
@@xrosslegends1279 Side characters don't count for "us death hopers" because side characters aren't important. THAT'S what makes them a side character. Main characters, who aren't always the protagonists, DO matter. Tingyun died, was I surprised? Yeah, cool scene. Did I care? No, I barely knew her. If I don't care about a character's life I won't care about said character's death. I didn't give a single fuck Firefly died because her introduction, to me, was badly done. That doesn't mean it's all in all pointless. There are ways to make "side character" deaths meaningful. Let's compare her to a character in persona 3. Same exact situation, even. He's a terminally ill young guy who just wants to write a children's book and whose interactions with you last for roughly the same as Firefly's. What's so different to make me care about him but not about Firefly? Because all of that character's interactions are yours to do. You decide when you want to see them so it doesn't feel like he's just instantly trauma dumping on you and albeit short, the interactions themselves are spread through entire in game weeks making it seem longer than they actually are. And most important of all, the message. Persona 3 is a game about death. Confronting it, dealing with it and accepting it. That guy shows the story of a 19 year old terminal patient showing a facade of accepting his inescapable fate to hide his fear and along with you coming to terms with it and ultimately truly accepting it. His arc was complete. That book guy I mentioned? You can argue he is kind of a side character. He is not one of the big guys pushing the story, he's even the "apprentice" of one of said big guys who was the protagonist of a book. And again, his arc despite his sudden death was complete because he managed to accept how loved he was and how even if he hates himself he deserves to live. The series isn't complete but arguably that's the whole point, that we as people can always grow and that even those who appeared to be broken can be an example of this growth. Going back to Penacony everything we heard the devs say is that it's a story about intrigue, we've seen how everyone shouldn't be trusted at face value and their goals are something that we are to learn. What does that mean for Firefly's death? Well, obviously, that you should doubt it. That there's more to it. That her death doesn't matter because it wasn't the end. When a really dangerous thing happens to a magician's assistant in the middle of the show you don't cry about their failed escape, you wonder in which moment did the escape occurred and what you failed to notice. That's how an appropriate ambiance works. It's ok to have soft stories. Not every story needs to have high risky stakes and it's definetely OK to enjoy one or both of those types but when a story clearly would benefit from one and doesn't it feels wrong. Idk, imagine a simple slice of life type of kid show where suddenly an assasin appeared and slit the throat of someone or a slasher horror movie where no death or even minor injury happens. It doesn't make sense for those stories, does it?
@@lil_cunni Well, it works for chock factor, but I've never been a fan of murder mysteries, or battle royal animes, reason why I've never gone far in the Danganronpa games, but I'm just saying what I don't like in concept, is not like tropes I dislike haven't surprised me in the past, but generally speaking if I like a character and want to see them interact with the main characters, that's not gonna happen if they die (unless of course they come back to life), I'm also not into revenge plots, so I wouldn't feel like wanting to avenge the murdered character, I would want answers, but killing the culprit wouldn't do much for me.
