Thoughts on the success of Cuphead as an independent animation project?

Thoughts on the success of Cuphead as an independent animation project?

the creator of the game is literally chad

I’m happy for them. The Game was fun. Hard work deserves some praise

He better steer clear of getting into the animation business then. If he gets too successful, then Hirsch/Ward/Sugar etc will send one of their interns to his studio to flirt, then claim sexual harassment to get him defrauded and fired like they did with Savino.

I wonder if this has happened or will happen. Pretty scary, but I guess that's just the nature of the game.

look at it
you look at it and tell me that isn't fucking beautiful
it was fun watching Sup Forums lose their shit trying to pretend it's a bad game

I think it means that animation is much more lucrative when used for videogames, and that theatrical/tv animation is becoming obsolete.

>graphics make a game good
Shut the fuck up.

are you retarded?

Are you? "It looks good" isn't good gameplay. It doesn't matter that it catters to a niche.

I didn't say "it looks good therefore it's a good game" I said "it looks good, it was fun watching Sup Forums lose their shit pretending it was a bad game"
It's a good game AND it looks good
maybe I should have clarified that just in case a dipshit like you can't tell the difference

Except it's not that good a game. And yes, you should have.

>Sup Forums
>knowing what a good game is

I thought it was fun. Had solid mechanics, controlled well, had really fun and interesting boss designs. The fact that it looked gorgeous was just the icing on the cake.

You’re a faggot contrarian, we get it. Run along now

It is fun. The mechanics are precise, but there's no depth to them, the game is all skill, focus and memory. And for how much attention was put into the visuals, they basically contribute nothing to the game part of the videogame.

People like to complain about people watching videogames and not playing them, but there's no good reason to not do that with Cuphead, because there's no pleasure in the way you play it.

Make me.

The thing is. games like that do have an audience. it's old school difficulty, just without the limited continues bullshit old school games used to pull. a game doesnt need depth to be good. also, watching and playing are 2 very different things. watching cuphead gets you the fancy visuals but it doesnt get you the satisfaction of beating some of the harder bosses. as for the visuals, they contributer well. visuals. and thats all the visuals needed to do. the devs set out to develop a game that looks and sounds like a 1930s rubber hose cartoon, and they succeeded. would the game have had the fame it did without the visuals? definitely not. but the visuals it has IS what makes it stand out. the entire game was a huge passion project for people who love 30s cartoons.

>games like that do have an audience
Okay?

>a game doesnt need depth to be good
Sure.

>watching and playing are 2 very different things
>would the game have had the fame it did without the visuals? definitely not
Do you see the contradiction in this? The very thing that made the game popular is precisely the thing people don't *need* to play the game to experience. I'm not trying to diss the effort the dev team put into the game -- that wouldn't even be an argument. The problem is that the game has a huge graphics/gameplay segregation; but because it appeals to people's elitism with both its graphics and gameplay, it gets a pass, when devs have aimed to bring a holistic experience since the days of the SNES and other title would (and have been) be ripped apart for doing the same thing.

>as for the visuals, they contributer well. visuals. and thats all the visuals needed to do.
Wrong. Visuals communicate to the player. Without the right visuals you couldn't discriminate what you should evade and what not, or pretty much anything really. Likewise with sound design.

it's cool, but it wont convinve movie studios make 2d features again

it's just a great tribute to 30's animation, that's all.

>Wrong. Visuals communicate to the player. Without the right visuals you couldn't discriminate what you should evade and what not, or pretty much anything really. Likewise with sound design.
The visuals DID do that, though.
>Do you see the contradiction in this? The very thing that made the game popular is precisely the thing people don't *need* to play the game to experience. I'm not trying to diss the effort the dev team put into the game -- that wouldn't even be an argument. The problem is that the game has a huge graphics/gameplay segregation; but because it appeals to people's elitism with both its graphics and gameplay, it gets a pass, when devs have aimed to bring a holistic experience since the days of the SNES and other title would (and have been) be ripped apart for doing the same thing.
But like I said. playing and watching are different. the game would still be solid without the visuals. that's what I was saying. it draws you in with the graphics and keeps you playing with the simple yet fun gameplay. also, i can think of a few games that are super well liked, that are just as hard, if not harder than cuphead. namely any of the ninja gaiden games. hard games are fun for alot of people. its not elitism.

>The visuals DID do that, though.
Only the bare minimum. You could have had it with completely different graphics and the gameplay wouldn't have changed. It was far from used to its full extent. It lacks plasticity and the bosses are mostly irresponsive. It's all shot/evade blindly > animation > shot/evade blindly > animation > repeat until it's over. It's a step back from what has become an industry standard.

>playing and watching are different
How are they different in this case, when the main drawn is the visuals?

>hard games are fun for alot of people. its not elitism.
Yes, and it's not rare for difficulty to mask not so good game design, because people go in with the mentality that the game should kick their asses.

>Only the bare minimum. You could have had it with completely different graphics and the gameplay wouldn't have changed. It was far from used to its full extent. It lacks plasticity and the bosses are mostly irresponsive. It's all shot/evade blindly > animation > shot/evade blindly > animation > repeat until it's over. It's a step back from what has become an industry standard.
It's a throwback to old run n guns. I get if you prefer more dynamic bosses, but stuff like this was crazy common in the games that inspired Cuphead. Metal Slug, Gunstar Heroes, etc. It's just the genre, dude.

>How are they different in this case, when the main drawn is the visuals?
Because while the visuals are the main draw, playing it is entirely different, like I said. watching a game is never the same as playing, Unless its a VN, since at that point its just making choices. watching the game is watching the cartoon. playing the game is interacting with the cartoon. which is much better, since you're the one in control. you're the one shooting the things. you're the one who has to fight the devil. it feels better when you're the one in control, rather than someone else being in control. thats why i dont watch alot of lets plays anymore.

>Yes, and it's not rare for difficulty to mask not so good game design, because people go in with the mentality that the game should kick their asses.
That I will agree with. alot of "hard" games are hard for the wrong reasons. bad level design, bad controls. all under the guise of "difficulty". but Cuphead isnt like those, though. Cuphead is hard, yes. but its fair.

This is one game where I wish there was an easy mode. Because I have several friends, all fans of traditional animation, who would be interested, but I've recommended against getting it, because they'd never be able to clear even the first world.

there is an easy mode, but you can only access the final world by beating the first 3 worlds on normal

The worst part of Sup Forums is its rabid contrarianism, if you wish to go against common opinion it's more than fine, but you should be able to explain your reasoning.

Would have to say that even playing VN is completely different from just watching it, unless the one I'm watching is communicating with me and making the choices I'm telling them to make.

You do have a point. I guess I meant that you could get the general story out of a walkthrough, but yes. the choices you make will be different than the ones the guide makes. so i agree with you there.

I know, but the simple mode cuts so much content including the coolest parts of the boss fights, and it's still a struggle for people who didn't grow up playing fast-paced games. Doesn't feel like a good use of 20 euros.

>It's a throwback to old run n guns.
>It's just the genre, dude.
That's fine. I don't criticize it for making sacrifices. What I criticize is the obligation to accept it despite its intendedly limited scope.

>Because while the visuals are the main draw, playing it is entirely different, like I said.
It might feel different, but that doesn't make it different. If the game provides you with only one solution to its challenges, then it's either not a game, or you're the one being played. What makes games good is the choices they bring. Doing the same thing over and over until you have it memorized isn't choosing.

>Cuphead is hard, yes. but its fair.
I don't believe in "hard, but fair", because winnig is always based on inequality. What I do believe in is "it makes sense for this to be difficult".

I have, read the thread. Maybe if you weren't so impatient, I wouldn't have to bait people into having actual discussions.

>The worst part of Sup Forums
Also, why do you think Sup Forums is this hivemind of opinions. I don't even go to that place.

that is very true. honestly i do wish the easy mode was better, and didnt lock you out of the final world. i played on normal, but honestly i want more people to get in on this game.

>what makes games good is the choices they bring
>doing the same thing over and over until you hve it memorize isn't choosing
This line of reasoning, this definition for what makes a good game or not, is so narrow you would discount many classic titles because the way they teach you mechanics to apply what the game gives you, to very specific circumstances and memorizing boss patterns, has little choice but lots of skill. There are many games that give players only one way and it's a hard way, but that's because it rewards and demands skill from their players to master the mechanics.

>That's fine. I don't criticize it for making sacrifices. What I criticize is the obligation to accept it despite its intendedly limited scope.
we accept it because its a fun game with that limited scope.

>It might feel different, but that doesn't make it different. If the game provides you with only one solution to its challenges, then it's either not a game, or you're the one being played. What makes games good is the choices they bring. Doing the same thing over and over until you have it memorized isn't choosing.
Not every game needs choices to be fun. Chrono Trigger is known as one of the greatest RPGs of all time and that was a pretty straightforward run through. the only big choice you have to make is whether or not you wanna save chrono. Little Nightmares has been very well received, despite being super linear, because it tells its story in a neat way and is fun to play. The Kirby series is really well received, too. the only choices you make in that are what power ups you wanna use, and they dont even affect how you progress through the level, really. I could go on.

>I don't believe in "hard, but fair", because winnig is always based on inequality. What I do believe in is "it makes sense for this to be difficult".
Winning is based on outsmarting your opponent. you both can be evenly matched and one will still have to come out on top. a game being hard but fair is a thing. because good level design that still kicks your ass is a thing. lots of classic titles have that. alot of modern classics have that too. you say that you believe something has to make sense being difficult. but good level design makes sense, does it not

>Doing the same thing over and over until you have it memorized isn't choosing.
I bet you think Cave Story was bad you absolute fuck.

Actually the glove twirl is not properly timed, but you happened to pick one of the few of the game's animations that are done wrong.

> glove twirl is not properly timed
Explain?

Not that user, but i assume its the stopping point of the twirl. Focus on the right arm of frogman, look how it sort of just abruptly stops and goes back down to the normal idle position. If it was to be "properly" timed, the twirl would have went on for another half second or so, making it look just a tad bit better.

Thats all i can take from it though, its either that or is a weirdo.

the game is so hard you can't even enjoy looking at the gorgeous animation and have to fully concentrate on beating whatever motherfucker you have to beat now

>is so narrow
Not really.

>you would discount many classic titles because
So? Games have changed for a reason.

>There are many games that give players only one way and it's a hard way, but that's because it rewards and demands skill from their players to master the mechanics.
And they are less games for it.

>Not every game needs choices to be fun.
Just being "fun" is not the measure of a good game. There are bad foods that taste good. There are people that like bad comedy. You can make pretty much anything into "fun" if you try anyway.

>is known as one of the greatest RPGs of all time
>has been very well received
>is really well received
Not an argument. Movies are well received too.

Either point out what it is that made those games good or don't bring them up. You'll see that it will always have to do with choice, no matter how small or big they are. Any action you undertake in a videogame in order to succeed is a matter of choice, and that's what makes them different from other media.

>you both can be evenly matched and one will still have to come out on top.
It's impossible to be evenly matched. If people were evenly matched there would be no reason for competition. The more interesting fights are between people who aren't trying to be even, anyway. Without choice there's no reason to have fun beating a game.

And it has very little to do with a game like Cuphead. You're not matched to anything, just the levels the devs put you through. Whether the level is winnable has nothing to do with your skill or capabilities and instead depends on their decisions. "Hard but fair" doesn't even make sense because you're not competing at all in this game; you're just deluding yourself into thinking you're "winning" against a machine.

It was fine the first... what? ...two times I played it. After that forced story just became too much of a chore to keep playing and there was nothing new to the game anyway.

Honestly yea, i dont care if i get spammed with "git gud"s

Cuphead is more challenging than it needs to be, i get if you want your game to be challenging but hot damn.

Just add actual difficulty settings, not
>Play the incredibly difficult normal game
>Or play the ridiculously easy mode that cheats you out of the final boss.

I understand that that is how games used to be, insanely difficult and unforgiving. But it was shitty then and its still shitty now.

If you want your game to be infamous for being hard, then do indeed do so. But still add more difficulty settings, especially for a game like Cuphead, a very appealing game that has the capability to attract huge audiences, and then alienate probably half of them because of the overwhelming difficulty.


I don't know, maybe i'm autistic or something.

There is a video where the creators explained the developers and production team had to work out the timing with the animation/game mechanics. Might have something to do with that.

It's only hard if you go for A+'s

which is what i did, i didn't even get to enjoy the dang music

A+? You have to play on the even-harder Expert level to earn the highest rank possible, the S.

you sound like dobson

It's ugly much in the same way old Looney Tunes and Tom & Jerry are.

It’s difficulty is hugely overstated. You could pick any random NES or SNES side scroller and find one that’s harder.

You can do both, it's not that hard unless you want to S rank things. At which point you might take a break because fuck those shooting sections. I hate pyramid peril. I can't get it in under two minutes.

Nice debut for a start-up indie group

Now watch as EA buys them

he's unironically correct here, you're just ignoring him because he's dobson

Like I said, only A+ing is hard.

I think a lot of people who got Cuphead were just interested in the graphics and music and don't have much experience with games like Contra

Honestly, the bosses with reasonable difficulty outnumber those that are ridiculously hard. But when you do face those kaizo mother fuckers its going to take some time to beat them.

>Hilda Berg Blind
>Djimmi the Great
>Grim Matchstick
>Rumor Honeybottoms
>Dr.Kahl
>Cala Maria Blind.

All these guys have given me considerable trouble, and I am still stuck on the fucking bee and mad scientist.

hi dobson

>only one gif in this thread
Make with the pencil tests, faggots.

It's a skill based game. You either acquire skill or you don't. If you can't acquire skill than just play something easier. Shitting on a game because you suck is just pathetic.

Where are you stuck when it comes to them?

>cuphead is unironically being called the "Dark Souls" of platformers
>nah man it's just dobson

I mean, everyone who claims Cuphead is really hard is fucking wrong, but I'm not denying it's only one guy saying that. it's also thousands of girls who never played an action platformer in their life

Yea i feel like me and this "Dobson" could get along pretty well.

And for this, i crudely addressed this with

>I understand that that is how games used to be, insanely difficult and unforgiving. But it was shitty then and its still shitty now.

But keep in mind that alot of games back in the day had many limitations and were a much bigger challenge to program, making them what people would call "clunky."

Castlevania and Ninja Gaiden are good examples, Ninja Gaiden slightly less so. But in both of those games, the movement is very stiff, potentially making accidental fuck ups more common. But Cuphead is more heavily designed around challenge, the movement is very fluid but the game is built around intense difficulty.

>I hate games where I gotta memorize something and can't just beat on the first try unless I'm lucky

>I will use this as my only critique about this game and chastise anyone that tells me it's my fault and not the game's

>Now that I've beaten that dead horse, I'm gonna around saying no one is allowed to criticize other problems with the game that have nothing to do with the game play without someone responding with "GIT GUD" as a means to shut down any critical talk about the whole game which is total bullshit

>I'm going to take what everyone says to me 100% serious rather than realize they're trolling the shit out of me by saying "GIT GUD" to anything I have to say about this game because I'm that fucking gullible.

Are you greentexting Dobson or game journos?

>Bee:
Mostly her second and third forms. Most of the time i get fucked by platform RNG and cant escape her projectiles, and I have trouble dosging those bee missiles when she goes into her second form.

>Dr. Kahl
Im still stuck on his first phase and thats mostly because its the closest thing cuphead has to a true bullet hell from the start of the bossfight. Even Cala Maria slowly built up to her full arsenal of projectiles, but the scientist goes from 0 to 100 right at the start. Ive heard his final form is bad as well.

It's like someone complaining about having to memorize maps in fzero.

Is there a difference anymore? Dobson should just give up drawing and become a game reviewer for Polygon. The only thing he doesn't have going for him is he doesn't look like some vegan hipster.

This what meant for

Bee's second form missiles are dodged by going up and down. Her third form just needs you to move around and remember you can shoot down.

The scientists first form is pretty easy though. Go for his stomach it changes his projectiles parry what his chests throw out than get rid of it and the antenna. The last phase was what I had trouble with until I changed to looking at the scientist to looking at cuphead.

>January 13, 2018
>People still complain about Cuphead being too difficult when Charge Shot and Smoke Bomb exist

Dobson literally sucks at everything

What happens when western video games become more story driven than your average jrpg.

People exist that get mad that the meta of a game is something they have to understand to get better at the game. That's the what happens when most games are pick up and go types with very little required from the player.

Its gameplay is just a mixture of gunstar Heroes, Contra and Metal Slug. So what are you saying all 2d shooters are bad?

Waiting for it to go on sale, looks like the game all indie games were leading up to.

>Just being "fun" is not the measure of a good game. There are bad foods that taste good. There are people that like bad comedy. You can make pretty much anything into "fun" if you try anyway.
One of the most important aspects of a game is fun factor. if its not fun, why even play?
>Not an argument. Movies are well received too.

Either point out what it is that made those games good or don't bring them up. You'll see that it will always have to do with choice, no matter how small or big they are. Any action you undertake in a videogame in order to succeed is a matter of choice, and that's what makes them different from other media.
Chrono Trigger works because of its story and characters. Combat system is pretty good, too. Little Nightmares is good because its a solid platformer with a good spooky atmosphere. Kirby works because its an easy series of games that anyone can get into, and the whole series just oozes charm. Also, if you wanna go there, the choice in cuphead is what weapons to use for what boss. some weapons are more effective against certain bosses than others.

>It's impossible to be evenly matched. If people were evenly matched there would be no reason for competition. The more interesting fights are between people who aren't trying to be even, anyway. Without choice there's no reason to have fun beating a game.

And it has very little to do with a game like Cuphead. You're not matched to anything, just the levels the devs put you through. Whether the level is winnable has nothing to do with your skill or capabilities and instead depends on their decisions. "Hard but fair" doesn't even make sense because you're not competing at all in this game; you're just deluding yourself into thinking you're "winning" against a machine.
This doesn't even make sense. Hard but fair makes perfect sense. a level can be well designed but still kick your ass, and itd totally be your fault. seems like you just dont like hard games dude:^)