peanutbutterlatte
Member
I liked Doom 3, a lot.
I liked it, it was just different to what I'd expect from a Doom game. They were clearly set on taking it in a new direction, which was pretty daring, but sometimes that isn't always appropriate.
I liked Doom 3, a lot.
I think the vast majority of people would agree, no?
7th gen of consoles (360, PS3, Wii, PSP, DS) is the worst generation in gaming history, primarily for least innovation (Original IPs with Original Gameplay) contributed to gaming) in software content.
Reasons Against:
1. Drought of RPGs (Mass Effect & Lost Odyssey are only two I respect)
2. Drought of New IPs (Erratic frenzy of Remakes/Remaster/Delays)
3. Golden Age of Shooters (I only remember shooting Zombies/Aliens/Terrorists) and I didn't see much difference in gameplay mechanics.
Reasons For:
1. The Wii made gaming mainstream and gave us Family/Casual Players
2. Some Innovative Games: Demon/Dark Souls, BioShock, Super Mario Galaxy, Rainbow Six Vegas, No More Heroes, Folklore, Valkyria Chronicles, Little Big Planet, Vanquish, Contact DS, Indie Games too of course
3. The best 'Shooter' controller for consoles (even though D-pad is terrible for fighter games)
I could see the argument about AJ, but I'm not sure what your problem with Jim is when he actually does more journalistic endeavors than most supposed journos.Ad long as we have childish gaming celebrities who are praised like idols like Jim Sterling and Angry Joe the gaming community will continue to appear as nothing more than a children's hobby to some people
I find myself agreeing with some of his points, but it's the way he delivers his opinions at times that I find childish.I could see the argument about AJ, but I'm not sure what your problem with Jim is when he actually does more journalistic endeavors than most supposed journos.
The Last of Us
Bayonetta
Infamous
Blue Dragon
Dragon Age
Crackdown
Lollipop Chainsaw
Shadows of the Damned
Dearth Smiles
Bug Princess
Sonic Racing
The return of Afterburner and a great Outrun
Just off the top of my head. I don't agree.
I find myself agreeing with some of his points, but it's the way he delivers his opinions at times that I find childish.
(even though D-pad is terrible for fighter games)
4. Balance patches for games in general are weird. Unless they're fixing a game-breaking glitch that renders it unplayable, people should just suck it up and get used to the way the game is. People will eventually find ways to counter 'overpowered' characters/weapons and constantly changing the gameplay every few weeks just makes things confusing and no-one will be satisfied. But if a game is released and no balance patches happen, people will eventually stop complaining about how 'unbalanced' it is and just get used to the way it is.
SNES/GBA etc games have more charm and character to it then most indy pixel games today. Im talking about the charm of the pixel art. Not gameplay.
4. Balance patches for games in general are weird. Unless they're fixing a game-breaking glitch that renders it unplayable, people should just suck it up and get used to the way the game is. People will eventually find ways to counter 'overpowered' characters/weapons and constantly changing the gameplay every few weeks just makes things confusing and no-one will be satisfied. But if a game is released and no balance patches happen, people will eventually stop complaining about how 'unbalanced' it is and just get used to the way it is.
I always felt this attitude is a holdover from people conditioned to see games as fixed products that spring into existence fully formed and never change - those who grew up playing arcade cabinets and cartridge-based game consoles. I don't actually see many people upset at or confused by balance adjustments in the modern era. People seem quite happy that games can be refined with ease, today.
Games are balanced tested and adjusted before they're released to the public as well. Post-release balance adjustment is the continuing refinement of the game, nothing more. As games become more complex, it gets increasingly difficult to balance a game well with a limited testing pool. With multiplayer games especially, they ultimately must be turned loose against the public so that the entire world can beat on them, and reveal unexpected issues. "Just deal with it" only goes so far. Quite frequently, poor game balanced results in the game not being played the way the designers intend, or even the way most players want the game to be played.
The nostalgic "golden age" when games could not be patched is full of games people dealt with only because there was nothing better. Hardly anyone is playing all the old unbalanced fighting games from the 90s or early 2000s.
Street Fighter 3 still has a strong following. People who play that game make jokes about how overpowered some of the characters are but it's still possible to counter them with the worst character in the game if you know what you're doing. Compare that to League of Legends which has balance changes every two seconds and no-one seems to be happy with the way the game is.
The main thing is being able to set some kind of limitation or goal for yourself when you play them. It doesn't have to be 1CC but at least something that forces you to attempt to learn the game in way using 40 credits to brute force it wouldn't. They don't work as content tourism games for that to be fun.I'm currently addicted to Cave games on Steam, and I'd argue not playing strictly 1CC-only doesn't ruin the game. While brute force credit feeding might, a talented player can maneuver and internalize well enough that they continue to improve at the game, and honestly I'd imagine all but the most hardcore would be willing to pop a dollar into a machine to clear it.
I don't know. Guess I don't get the "1CC or Die" mentality when they're arcade games designed to take your money, and I'm having a blast clearing and learning Black Label on two continues.
I could see why people wouldn't like them, but garbage, really? I'd love it if you explained why you think that.Persona 3&4 are garbage and a shame to the Shin Megami Tensai name.
And 5 doesn't seem to be any better.
The top tiers in Third Strike being overpowered is fact. Yun, Ken and Chun have no matchups lower than an even 5-5, but annihilate the worst characters like Q and Twelve by 7-3 or even 8-2. The fact that people got used to it because they had no choice, or because the game overall is amazing (my personal favorite in the series, in fact) doesn't make such massive balance problems a good thing. As much as I love it, Third Strike would be a much better game if the tier list were a lot flatter.
I would much rather the devs at least attempt to fix things than simply leave the broken shit broken forever.
The main thing is being able to set some kind of limitation or goal for yourself when you play them. It doesn't have to be 1CC but at least something that forces you to attempt to learn the game in way using 40 credits to brute force it wouldn't. They don't work as content tourism games for that to be fun.
If these games used checkpoint systems instead of respawning exactly where you died then maybe full on credit feeding would still be fun as you'd still have to beat each section.
I thought most people feel the same way about this.Y
- The Dualshock 4 is the best controller i've ever had in my hands.
While I disagree with your take on Dreamcast, I actually don't mind this. Definitely when it comes to exclusives and Xbox/PC games.The original Xbox is Microsoft's best console.
Final Fantasy 7 is one of the most overrated games of all time.
That's fine and all...
But at least it's not Final Fantasy 8.
Ff8 is complete dogshit horrible.
2. SFIII has the worst soundtrack in fighting game history
The story is bad, the dungeon design is awful, and the daytime activities are boring.I could see why people wouldn't like them, but garbage, really? I'd love it if you explained why you think that.
Also they aren't SMT games so how are they a shame to the name?
I thought most people feel the same way about this.