believer258's forum posts

#1 Posted by believer258 (11624 posts) -

@hailinel said:

@believer258: Define "up its own ass". If you're talking about the original characters and core narrative, I had no problem with it.

Oh, God. I mean the slow, meandering, shoegazing dialogue that the game takes super-seriously and which hardly has any meaning at all. I was trying to like Kingdom Hearts 2, I really was, and I really did for quite a while. I liked how upbeat and stupidly childish it was when roaming through Disney worlds was the game's emphasis, when Maleficent was the antagonist and Pete was her bumbling, incompetent subordinate. Sure, Organization XIII and Nobodies and what-have-you were there, but they were so far removed from things that I didn't give a fuck. And then suddenly they had everything to do with the story, which I was OK with for a little while but it just started taking everything so seriously. And then the Disney part that I liked clashed with the load of bollocks that was the story too much for me to want to keep playing. Blame me for not playing all of the handheld spinoffs and not understanding fully what was going on or something, but the overarching story acted like it had something profound to say but didn't have much of anything to say at all.

And, as I mentioned, the gameplay is largely just mashing X, occasionally healing or pushing triangle when fast enough to catch the prompt. Not anywhere near enough for me to power through the story.

Online
#2 Posted by believer258 (11624 posts) -

Playstation 1? Naughty Dog. I played a fair bit of Spyro but Crash 2 and 3 are some of the best games from that generation.

Playstation 2? It was Naughty Dog but I seem to look back more favorably on the Ratchet games (and, in retrospect, probably spent a lot more time playing them).

Playstation 3? Well... neither, really, which is pretty frustrating to someone who grew up with the games that these companies made and fully expected to love them again. The Uncharted games have impressive set pieces and generally good dialogue between characters, but neither the gameplay nor the stories back up those things that are impressive on the surface. Both developers have delivered at least one game this generation that has really, really impressed me - Insomniac's Resistance 3 and Naughty Dog's The Last of Us are both some of the better games of this generation (though, again, The Last of Us has some really spotty gameplay - bad AI, enemies feel like they take too many bullets for such a serious-faced game, respawning enemies, etc.). Resistance 3 has a few story problems but it delivers what it's got very well and it's actually a pretty good shooter.

I'm trying to decide which one I'm disappointed in less, which probably isn't a good sign.

A Crack in Time might be the best-looking game on this generation of consoles. Yeah, The Last of Us looks pretty good for a PS3 game, but the aliasing does that game no favors and it gets a bit frame-y. A Crack in Time looks like a fucking Pixar movie and runs at 60FPS.

Online
#3 Posted by believer258 (11624 posts) -

If you don't like 1 and 2 then stop now. Playing more will only cause you to descend into madness.

I played a fair bit of 2 earlier this year. When that game is basically running through Disney stories, it's rather charming. When it decides to go up its own ass, it really is insufferable. And the gameplay itself isn't anywhere near good enough to stand up on its own.

Online
#4 Posted by believer258 (11624 posts) -

There are still fairly difficult FPS's being released. Halo Reach and 4 are both pretty rough, but fair on Legendary. Shadow Warrior was respectably difficult. Wolfenstein got pretty hard. All of them pretty satisfying, too. And, of course, the classics still hold up pretty well in terms of good difficulty - Half-Life 1 and 2, Doom 1 and (mostly) 2, the original Halo, FEAR (you should play FEAR 1 if you want to see how a good, difficult FPS is done), etc. You can have a story-based shooter that's also tough-as-nails, and it doesn't need to just be 6 levels.

It is kind of repetitive to keep going through levels in difficult games, but there's a unique sort of satisfaction when you beat games like Mega Man 2 without dying much. Unlike narrative-driven shooters or something, you keep going through these games because at some point, you're going to master them and you'll be a complete badass, not because the story told you you were, but because you accomplished that. It's something that progression with experience points or whatever can't really do for you.

And now that we've talked about Mega Man and good difficulty, go play Shovel Knight.

Online
#5 Posted by believer258 (11624 posts) -

Yeah, these questions really seem to hinge on how much you want to play with your friends. Got a lot of buddies who play games? Go with what they play on. Prefer single player? Stick with the PC, dude.

Online
#6 Posted by believer258 (11624 posts) -

As a note, this list is obviously incomplete and tends to my own tastes a little too much (I don't even know what I'd say about Myst, for instance) but I'll try my best. I'm not particularly familiar with pre-NES era games, which ones I'd teach, what's important, etc. Obviously there's the basic arcade games (Pong, Pac-Man, Asteroids, Missile Command) and Tennis for Two, but I couldn't tell you all that much about Atari or PC's of the era. I'd have to say something about Wizardry (a game that JRPG's owe a lot to) and text adventure games.

It's also worth noting that you're looking for history and not mechanics. So, while Super Metroid may be superior to its predecessors in every way, it's a bit less important than the original Metroid and The Legend of Zelda and the focus of those games on directionless exploration. If you were talking about video game design, then it would probably be the other way around - Metroid patented it, Super Metroid made it way better.

So, really, I'm just going to mention what I know.

The NES and SNES eras are obviously important. The rise of JRPG's (Dragon Quest, Final Fantasy, Earthbound, Chrono Trigger) and platformers (Metroid, Castlevania, Mega Man, and duh) would definitely be a focus for me. Outside of Nintendo systems, Sonic would be something to talk about. And on the PC, we have id Software and the invention of the shooter. Wolfenstein, Doom, and Quake would all get discussed, though as per what I said above, Wolfenstein 3-D and Quake would probably get discussed a little more because of what they invented rather than what they perfected.

Later on, in the N64/PS1 era, Super Mario 64 and Ocarina of Time would be the obvious two to talk about. Metal Gear Solid would get some discussion. Goldeneye would. This is also the era where shooters on consoles really got started and people began to tire of platformers and JRPG's, so that would be a discussion. Really, looking back, the N64 did have more revolutionary games than the PS1, it just didn't have enough of them.

On the PC end, we'd first have first person dungeon crawlers (Might and Magic, Lands of Lore, Wizardry) and then isometric CRPG's (Fallout, Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, Planescape Torment). Unreal Tournament and Quake 3 are important, mostly because they took PC multiplayer shooters and made them a hell of a lot better. And then there's the big one. The Super Mario Bros. of PC gaming. Half-Life. Narrative, mechanics, environments, set pieces, immersion - Half-Life did for storytelling in games what Super Mario Bros. did for mechanics. It's probably worth spending an entire class or two discussing.

And this is where things get a lot muddier. Some games in the early PS2/Xbox era are worth talking about, but this is where huge leaps slowed down and more nuanced advances started. Halo Combat Evolved is definitely worth a discussion. It made shooters on consoles seem equal to their PC counterparts, though I would argue that Halo CE is so great because it knew the limitations of console FPS's and designed around them instead of tackling them head-on with the design philosophy of a PC shooter. Final Fantasy X was where JRPG's largely became fully 3D. Grand Theft Auto III was a very impressive open world at the time.

Half-Life 2, Resident Evil 4, FEAR, Far Cry, and perhaps Kill.switch (for the cover-based shooting that Gears of War would later perfect) would probably be the last few weeks of class if it were being taught now, in 2014. It's hard to tell what's really important after this. Gears of War and Call of Duty 4, obviously, but other than that I'm not a hundred percent sure what will be considered important when we can really look back on gaming since 2006. Dark Souls seems like it's going to be important. Braid. The rise of "metroidvania" games in general, and indie games.

This list is, of course, very incomplete and full of holes. It doesn't really focus on technology, for one. Graphics leaps, faster internet, Steam, how video game budgets have risen to insane levels, etc. - all of those are pretty important. You might be able to argue that video game history should be taught based on what technology allowed and what games did with that technology, at least early video games.

Online
#7 Posted by believer258 (11624 posts) -

227

I've never met another woman who has a color deficiency. Most don't even know they have it because everyone seems to think only males can have that issue. I had to actually ask my eye doctor so I could take the test whereas my brother was tested during one of his normal checkups (and he didn't even have it).

I have met a girl who is colorblind. Haven't seen her in ages, but at least you're not alone in the world!

Online
#8 Edited by believer258 (11624 posts) -

Perfect!

EDIT: Oh. I'm 22 and male. I actually don't have good vision, so being able to see colors clearly isn't a huge comfort.

Online
#9 Posted by believer258 (11624 posts) -

When I first played Chains of Olympus, I was utterly lost on what was actually going on. I think the gameplay is all right, though.

That they got Ghost of Sparta to run on a PSP is fucking amazing. I mean, it's been a while since I played it, but I still remember being super impressed with the way that game looked and played on the portable.

I still like the first game best, if only because its story builds up and then delivers pretty well. It would have been more fitting, in a classical sense, if his suicide had actually worked (i.e. like a tragic Greek hero), but it still works pretty well.

Online
#10 Posted by believer258 (11624 posts) -

@believer258 said:

I'd rather have 720p60.

It's 2014, this game should be AT LEAST 30fps 1080p on a brand new system, tear free.

An option would be nice, actually.

As far as I'm concerned, games with faster framerates just play and feel better than those locked at 30. The difference between 720p and 1080p is hardly big enough for me to sacrifice framerate for resolution, but then I wouldn't trade 720p60 for 4K resolutions at 30 frames per second. But some people are the other way around.

Online