Is this at all like Freedom Force?

[irrevenant]

I was initially under the impression it would be but reviews seem to be comparing it more to something like X-Com?

[Jeysie]

Freedom Force is mentioned in one review.

Everything else talks at length about how it's a turn-based, story-driven campaign in the Sentinel Comics IP, versus Freedom Force being RTwP, a completely different IP, and more sandboxy. Likewise the game is up front about the specific details of what the customization involves, which is much more like the Sentinel Comics tabletop RPG the game is based on versus the more free-form of Freedom Force.

So there honestly actually doesn't seem to be any reason to expect a Freedom Force clone aside from wanting every superhero RPG to be one, which hearkens back to my earlier replies in this thread where I think that's counterproductive to an overall goal of wanting more superhero RPGs in general.

And from a Sentinels standpoint I loved it. The character customization aspect is on par with what I'd expect to see based on turning the Sentinel Comics tabletop RPG's mechanics into a digital form, the writing definitely has Christopher's classic cheesy Silver Age style he shows often in the Letters Page podcast (or to be more precise, often GTG's Chris Burton doing a good job of emulating that style), the voice acting is wonderful and my only gripe there is that there isn't more of it, and the art does a good job of translating Adam's style into 3D.

And I honestly prefer the more X-Com style of gameplay because I feel more at home and comfortable with turn-based gameplay than I do with Freedom Force's RTwP gameplay, so I'm happier there as well.

[x_equals_speed]

Why do you think there are so many reviews and forum posts about how this game compares to Freedom Force but there aren't in the reviews and forums for other turn based strategies that have come out this year?

My explanation is "There are things on the store page that make it look like it's going to be similar to Freedom Force"

But you think that's not true. So what explanation do you use to explain the difference?

[Tchey]

Originally posted by x_equals_speed:

But you think that's not true. So what explanation do you use to explain the difference?

Lack on culture and knowledge, as often.

[Jeysie]

Originally posted by Tchey:

Originally posted by x_equals_speed:

But you think that's not true. So what explanation do you use to explain the difference?

Lack on culture and knowledge, as often.

More or less.

People see "superhero RPG" and think "Freedom Force". Same as how for the longest time people saw "fantasy RPG" and thought "Baldur's Gate", or saw "scifi turn based game" and thought "X-Com", or saw 4X game and thought "Civilization", or so on.

It's not that much more complex than people seeing a game in a genre which is still a little niche and immediately thinking of the most popular existing game in that genre and then trying to apply it to everything that's even remotely in the same theming regardless of whether that makes sense gameplay-wise.

But over the decades fantasy RPGs and turn-based SF games and etc. have gathered enough games in those genres that people are less and less expecting everything to be clones of a single game, so I'm hoping that we'll eventually get enough superhero-themed RPGs that eventually it will happen there too.

And so I'm helping it along by trying to jump-start people getting used to the idea that not every superhero RPG that comes along is going to be a Freedom Force clone and that's totally OK and not an inherent knock against the game.

[WildOnes]

Nice

[irrevenant]

Originally posted by Jeysie:

There reaches a point when you have to just let it go and accept that companies are allowed to make the game they want to make and you should judge it for good or bad on its own merits and not because you wanted another company's game.

Where did anyone even vaguely imply that companies aren't allowed to make whatever game they want to make?

[Jeysie]

Originally posted by irrevenant:

Originally posted by Jeysie:

There reaches a point when you have to just let it go and accept that companies are allowed to make the game they want to make and you should judge it for good or bad on its own merits and not because you wanted another company's game.

Where did anyone even vaguely imply that companies aren't allowed to make whatever game they want to make?

This entire thread with people being negative about the game based on its lack of similarity to Freedom Force versus its own merits.

[Tchey]

I don’t read people negativity here, only people saying that Sentinels is not like Freedom Forces but has its own good too.

[irrevenant]

Originally posted by Jeysie:

Originally posted by irrevenant:

Where did anyone even vaguely imply that companies aren't allowed to make whatever game they want to make?

This entire thread with people being negative about the game based on its lack of similarity to Freedom Force versus its own merits.

I'm with Tchey in not seeing any negativity in the comments. But even if there was a negative reaction in there, how would that equate to saying that the company isn't allowed to make any type of game they want?

[Jeysie]

Originally posted by irrevenant:

But even if there was a negative reaction in there, how would that equate to saying that the company isn't allowed to make any type of game they want?

Sure, I suppose I'll be gracious via letting people move the goalposts...

if you're knocking the game for not being a clone of a given game versus sticking to judging the game on its own merits, you're thereby saying that companies who make a game in a given genre aren't allowed to make anything other than a clone of the game being compared to or else their game will start off already having the disadvantage of being inherently viewed negatively.

[irrevenant]

Originally posted by Jeysie:

Originally posted by irrevenant:

But even if there was a negative reaction in there, how would that equate to saying that the company isn't allowed to make any type of game they want?

Sure, I suppose I'll be gracious via letting people move the goalposts...[/q][/q]Feel free to point out where anyone criticised the game for not being Freedom Force. I'm happy to be corrected but right now I'm not seeing any such post. The closest I can see is Leprejaun's comment that it isn't as deep as Freedom Force, which was just answering my initial question how the two games compare.

Originally posted by Jeysie:

if you're knocking the game for not being a clone of a given game versus sticking to judging the game on its own merits, you're thereby saying that companies who make a game in a given genre aren't allowed to make anything other than a clone of the game being compared to or else their game will start off already having the disadvantage of being inherently viewed negatively.

Your original comment was "There reaches a point when you have to just let it go and accept that companies are allowed to make the game they want to make and you should judge it for good or bad on its own merits and not because you wanted another company's game."

Even if someone actually had said "I really wish they'd made a different game that was more like X. I'm not going to like this game because it's not X" that's still not a failure to accept that companies can make whatever they want.

We're only having this argument because you've touched on a personal bugbear of mine that I see all over the internet lately: This idea that personally disagreeing with something is somehow proscriptive.

I have zero interest in Call of Duty. I wish Activision spent their time and effort making games I actually want to play. Does that mean I think they shouldn't be allowed to make CoD? Of course not. I recognise that other people enjoy them and are willing to give Activision money for them.

It's silly to assume that anyone who would've preferred something else believes a game has no right to exist.

BTW, "saying that games aren't allowed to make X or else their game will start off having the disadvantage of being viewed negatively" isn't actually a thing. Games companies are allowed to make anything they like and we're allowed to like or dislike anything we want for any reason we want. There's no onus on us to like or support anything we don't want to.

All that said, I still haven't actually played this game yet (I'm not playing a lot of computer games at the moment) but I'm quite looking forward to it and will enjoy it or not on its own merits.

[Jeysie]

Originally posted by irrevenant:

Feel free to point out where anyone criticised the game for not being Freedom Force. I'm happy to be corrected but right now I'm not seeing any such post.

Again, the entire thread.

Look, if you don't find my thoughts on the subject convincing, you can still argue about them based on their own merits, that's fine.

But you don't need to add on the whole "I'm going to claim that nobody said what they very obviously actually did say just so I can try to paint you as crazy and unreasonable".

I don't expect people to agree with me, but I do expect them to disagree with me in an intellectually honest manner. Just putting that out there.

Originally posted by irrevenant:

that's still not a failure to accept that companies can make whatever they want.

Again, yes it is. If you go to a forum and say "this game's mechanics are worse than [game I wish it was a clone of]" just because the games share similar theming and otherwise are not an apple to apples comparison of mechanics, that by definition is you not accepting the company can make whatever they want.

Now if someone had come along and said "Sentinels of Freedom has worse mechanics than X-COM", that would be a fair opinion because would be a game comparison based on actual similarity in mechanics.

Or conversely, if someone had said "I liked how Freedom Force handled the storytelling in the superhero theme better than this one did", that would also be perfectly fair because that would also be an actual apples to apples comparison of the way the games actually are similar.

Originally posted by irrevenant:

I wish Activision spent their time and effort making games I actually want to play. Does that mean I think they shouldn't be allowed to make CoD?

It would if you went and posted on their forum "This game should be more like [game I want to play]; it's just not as deep since they went with CoD style and not [game I wanted more of]".

Originally posted by irrevenant:

BTW, "saying that games aren't allowed to make X or else their game will start off having the disadvantage of being viewed negatively" isn't actually a thing

Dude, that is literally 100% a thing. Just as an example, I also play the Pathfinder video games, and when Pathfinder Kingmaker first came out the comparisons to Baldur's Gate flew fast and heavy used both in favor of and against the game.

And indeed, the reason why it took so insanely long for modern turn-based D&D games to become an actual thing again is because every fantasy RPG fan wanted their fantasy RPGs to be like Baldur's Gate and would go apes--- at any tiny hint that developers were considering turn-based mechanics.

I'm not talking out of my butt here, I'm talking from a couple decades of being in video game fandom.

[irrevenant]

Originally posted by Jeysie:

Originally posted by irrevenant:

Feel free to point out where anyone criticised the game for not being Freedom Force. I'm happy to be corrected but right now I'm not seeing any such post.

Again, the entire thread.

Look, if you don't find my thoughts on the subject convincing, you can still argue about them based on their own merits, that's fine.

But you don't need to add on the whole "I'm going to claim that nobody said what they very obviously actually did say just so I can try to paint you as crazy and unreasonable".

I don't expect people to agree with me, but I do expect them to disagree with me in an intellectually honest manner. Just putting that out there.

Fine, let's go through the entire thread comment by comment:
1 - Me asking if this game is like Freedom Force
(I asked this because mostly because it has a similar look and art style and the interface looks similar in the trailer)
2 - You letting me know it's turn-based tactics rather than real-time with pause (thanks for that, BTW)
3 - leprejaun saying it's a simpler game than Freedom Force, that it's an X-Comish game but one that rewards dodging rather than cover.
4 - Pascal asking how the game compares to Troubleshooter
5 - Leprejaun saying Troubleshooter is better.
6 - x_equals_speed saying that the true successor to Freedom Force is Popup Dungeon.
7 - Tchey saying this game isn't much like Freedom Force and that it's closer to Troubleshooter.
8 - You saying 'Am I the only one who's kinda okay with this game not being like Freedom Force?'
9 - Tchey says 'It’s because "we" want a new Freedom Force that we cannot enjoy Sentinels. We want both.'
10 - You saying that Ghost Story Games/Take Two Interactive are the ones to talk to if we want an FF sequel.
11 - Me saying if this is a good game, I'm cool with it whether it's like Freedom Force or not.
12 - x_equals_speed saying that this game invites comarison to Freedom Force by including Freedom in the title and using an FF-related review quote.
13 - You pointing out (reasonably, IMO) that it's called "Sentinels of Freedom" because that's the name of the superhero team in Sentinels.
14 - x_equals_speed indicating they still find the page misleading.

Note: At this point no-one has indicated that they think the game should be like FF or that the company should make a game like FF. Discussion has been around (a) clarifying how this game compares to FF and other games like Troubleshooter (b) whether or not the game page is misleading.

15 - You say (1) you're surprised that people are expecting this game to be a clone of FF, (2) people need to accept that companies are allowed to make the game they want and you should judge it on its merits not for not being something else, and (3) the game is mare like X-Com with superheros than FF.
16 - x_equals_speed indicates that they still think the way the page presents itself makes it look like the game is FFish. They agree the game is more like X-Com but that comparison to X-Com emphasises the game's weaknesses rather than its strengths. They also indicate that they like this game.
17 - You say there's no reason to expect it to be a FF clone (which again no-one has, unless you count my initial post which was (a) a question, and (b) based on the art style). You say you really like the game.
18 - x_equals_speed continues to complain that the page makes the game look like FF.
19 - Tchey says people are just interpreting it as such because they're ignorant and lack culture.
20 - You agree with that.
21 - WildOnes says 'Nice'
22 - I ask you where anyone implied that companies aren't allowed to make whatever they want to make.
23 to 27 - Us hashing that out.

I've summarised and numbered the thread. I encourage you to please point out the comment in which anyone indicated that Underbite Games weren't allowed to make this game because it's not like FF.

[irrevenant]

Originally posted by Jeysie:

Originally posted by irrevenant:

BTW, "saying that games aren't allowed to make X or else their game will start off having the disadvantage of being viewed negatively" isn't actually a thing. Games companies are allowed to make anything they like and we're allowed to like or dislike anything we want for any reason we want. There's no onus on us to like or support anything we don't want to.

Dude, that is literally 100% a thing. Just as an example, I also play the Pathfinder video games, and when Pathfinder Kingmaker first came out the comparisons to Baldur's Gate flew fast and heavy used both in favor of and against the game.

And indeed, the reason why it took so insanely long for modern turn-based D&D games to become an actual thing again is because every fantasy RPG fan wanted their fantasy RPGs to be like Baldur's Gate and would go apes--- at any tiny hint that developers were considering turn-based mechanics.

I'm not talking out of my butt here, I'm talking from a couple decades of being in video game fandom.

It seems like you're still not grasping the distinction I'm talking about.

You said "There reaches a point when you have to just let it go and accept that companies are allowed to make the game they want to make and you should judge it for good or bad on its own merits and not because you wanted another company's game." (emphasis mine) It's a strong claim to say that people don't accept companies' right to make whatever game they want.

I don't know what your experiences were with the Baldur's Gate thing. Maybe someone, somewhere in those threads did literally say "These companies shouldn't be making anything other than spiritual sequels to Baldur's Gate". If so, I join you in condemning that position.

Conversely, if people were just saying en masse "This doesn't interest me, I'm just after something more like Baldur's Gate" then that's a matter of personal taste, not being proscriptive. It's not saying what they think companies should make, it's saying what they're willing to buy. That's a big difference and entirely reasonable.

In the case of this thread though, no-one has said anything about what they think Underbite Games should or shouldn't be doing. They've just been expressing their personal opinions of this game and those opinions have fallen between neutral and positive.

[Jeysie]

Originally posted by irrevenant:

In this case, no-one has said anything about what they think Underbite Games should or shouldn't be doing, they've just been expressing their personal opinions of this game. And those positions have fallen between neutral and positive.

Dude, just stop. I've done nothing in this entire thread but try to give reasonable stances for why I think it's detrimental to us getting more superhero RPGs in the future for us to keep obsessing over wanting the next Freedom Five clone.

In return, the second I get a couple people conceding I made some interesting points, out of the blue you start popping out with this weird deranged obsession with painting me as crazy rather than, you know, either also admitting I had a point or continue disagreeing without the ad hominem BS.

So, near as I can tell, the ad hominem-free side of your argument actually agrees with me that we should judge this and future superhero RPGs based on their own merits, so great. End of discussion between us as far as I'm concerned, then.