Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
No, it's fucking horrible.
Play X-Men: Mutant Apocalypse instead. Or barring that, Marvel Super Heroes, the capcom fighting game.
It wasn't pleasant. At all.
if you're gonna play marvel shit, i recommend the two Activision PS2 RPGs they made based around the X-Men. Or at least, Age of Apocalypse, which is the only one I actually played.
i'm limited to snes games sorry
Hm...
If you want a good action based game for the SNES, might i suggest Demon's Crest?
I just found a cool freeware game called "You Have to Win the Game".
It's a lot like VVVVVV, in that it seeks to emulate the look and feel of the old-school PC games with CRT monitors, and it's a very enjoyable experience overall even for those not familiar with retro PC gaming.
The game also has a rather clever twist at the end, but I won't spoil anything.
I got about 32% of the way through. The mechanics are solid and it's got a great aesthetic, but I personally get tired of timing puzzles pretty quickly, and eventually I just gave up when I realised that even if I passed this particular bit, I'd end up experiencing a lot more of the same for the remaining 68% of the experience. A shame, because it's a very interesting game.
I got to 20something% before it overheated the laptop. It bugs me that apparently some money bags can be lost forever. Still, quite interesting.
This is an interesting article that links to another interesting article.
Essentially, Miyamoto thinks that the modern game market is weirdly split. It makes sense from his perspective, as he's always made games that were both highly accessible and part of the "hardcore" gamer market, right up to Wii games. To him, the distinction must be confusing. And I pretty much agree with the implication. While gaming will always have demographics, the split into "casual" and "hardcore" is probably the most useless and the most in need of fixing. After all, we want everyone who plays games to be on the level, I think, and for games to be versatile and diverse enough to appeal to both groups within the same product.
Also:
So, he's a knight, too.
what are these feelings
^^The main problem, I think, is that the game's "old PC monitor" effect uses up a lot more disk activity than it should. Fortunately, I had a fan right next to me in addition to the fan in my laptop, so it's pretty easy for me to keep the CPU cool for games, I just set my laptop right next to the fan.
I got a Circle Pad Pro today. Made Resident Evil Revelations much easier to play.
I like "hardcore" as in "gaming for gaming sake", not "TOUGH AS FUCK, GRITTY AS FUCK, UNAPPROACHABLE AS FUCK".
As opposed to...?
To kill time, to excercise, to interact with people on Facebook, etc.
I'll give you the latter two, but if gaming's someone's method of killing time, then they're clearly doing that as opposed to reading a book or whatever because they prefer gaming.
The terminology is the issue. In terms of demographic, there's a clear distinction between people who play games in a more dedicated fashion (have a decent knowledge of gaming, keep up with releases, ect.) and those who don't (might play some of the most mainstream AAA titles, but is much more likely to stick to app gaming).
I mean it's not like films have an artificially created divide between people who only watch blockbusters and hollywood films and people who are more educated who watch foreign films and arthau- oh wait.
That said, gaming's an interesting aversion to that in terms of demographics. By anecdotal observation, I think a game is just as likely to be "arthouse" as "blockbuster" irrespective of whether it's a console release aimed at established gamers or a casual game.
I'm not sure I agree with that. Need I bring up the 'faggy anime games' story?
^^That might relate to production costs.
^I think he's talking more about what sorts of games are released on consoles versus on, say, iPhones.
^^ Catherine is definitely aimed towards established gamers. Not necessarily "hardcore" gamers in the conventional sense of the term (which just tells you how useless it is), but it's very much a gamer's game, very much for the reason you imply -- it's considered esoteric and unusual, even by someone who works at a video game store.
^ Yep.
Yeah, but there's still a divide of which are games 'proper' games.
I'd argue that Super Mario Bros. is a casual game, given the general "easy to learn, difficult to master" approach it takes in general. One button to run, one button to jump, that's pretty much it.
In my mind, a "hardcore" game is a game that takes a reasonable effort to learn basic play, while a "casual" game can be picked up and played with no prior experience.
^So things like fighting games, RTSes, complex RPGs, that sort of thing?
I don't think that dichotomy really works simply because most genre games (Like the aforementioned Fighting games, RTSes, RPGs and so on) come with tutorials and (Provided they're good) they are reasonably intuitive.
I'd disagree with you there. Most of the games I think of as "casual" are simple enough that they don't really need a tutorial.
RPGs tend to have a lot of spells and items to keep track of, as well as stat-tweaking and character customization. While some RPGs are very simple, such as the first three Dragon Warrior/Quest games, most modern ones are kind of hard. RTS games are similarly complex because they generally require you to keep track of a lot of different things at once.
As for Fighting Games, a lot of them are, by nature, unintuitive and cumbersome in controls. I shouldn't have to wiggle around the control stick and press different button combinations just to do a simple move. Super Smash Bros. is so far the only fighting game I've played that actually knows how to keep the controls simple enough that the average human being can learn them.
> I shouldn't have to wiggle around the control stick and press different button combinations just to do a simple move.
Um, this is how every game works.
^Fighting games do tend to do it in obtuse ways, though.
I feel that we have been playing very different fighting games, then. I mean, yeah, combos are complicated and if you play with people who have already mastered those, then you're all kinds of beaten, but I think that most fighting games I've played (MvC, MvSNK, Street Fighter come to mind) have a level of entry where they allow the player to discover what moves work in what context just fine, as well as dodging and such.