egg's forum posts

#1 Posted by egg (1455 posts) -

Ace Combat 4 and Ace Combat Zero

oh good, I'm not the first one to have mentioned them. They are fantastic games.

Ace Combat 5 is also exclusive, but the game is much worse than the other two, and the dialogue is cringeworthy.

#2 Posted by egg (1455 posts) -

I havent finished Rygar either. The game could have used more checkpoints. However the survival mode (which uses motion controls) is really neat and I would probably say the game is worth checking out for that alone.

#3 Edited by egg (1455 posts) -

I don't see any practical difference other than boobs.

That's how it should be. Anything more is sexism / cultural projection. :p

Usually one might expect the female version to be wearing a lot less clothes.

#4 Posted by egg (1455 posts) -

@dan_citi said:

@somberowl said:

They need to make a good Yu Gi Oh game.

Those early ones in the PS2/GC/GBA era were pretty good. Not fantastic, but still good. At this point the actual YuGiOh card game has gotten too out of control for me anyway. Once the GX era came along that ship sailed completely for me.

I've played a ton of the GBA Yugioh games and one of the DS ones, and most of them are terrible.

#5 Edited by egg (1455 posts) -

still no word on a release date for Xbox one last I heard.

the game is not filled with micro transactions, the game is just over eager to shove them in your face, so ppl think the game is heavy on micro transactions even though its actually not.

mechanics are messed up lol what? The game has full deckbuilding finally. If there is an DotP with correct mechanics, this is it. The engine and rules are ripped straight from previous Dotp titles like always so if there is something you don't like, don't blame one, blame them all.

#7 Edited by egg (1455 posts) -

"With another activity to keep exploration from getting stale."

punch me in the face while I eat so I dont get bored

"Even though the exploration parts are designed with this in mind?"

This makes no sense. You are perhaps insinuating that exploration parts are dumbed down in order to take random encounters into account. But first of all, this means that by not having random encounters we could have richer worlds to explore. (not like that matters in an RPG right??) But it also means that if you design environments with the existence of random encounters in mind (which logically means dumbing said environments down) then it stands to reason that by taking that logic to its ultimate conclusion you would decide to have no environments at all. Which is basically what SRPG's do. I'm saying, stop trying to have your cake and eat it too. You can only either be fighting enemies or navigating the environment at a given time. No matter what in a game with both, you have to take turns, and out of all the ways one might have tried to make a game that alternate between these two subgames, why choose the stupidest method possible? If you had two movies and wanted to watch them, 1) why would you alternate between the two in intervals of seconds at a time, and 2) why would you make the intervals RANDOM.

Also, only now I just realized, you didn't actually refute my point. You didn't argue that encounters were somehow good for exploration or somehow didn't make the environments suffer. You just said that they are "designed with this in mind" arguably in the same manner a urinal cake was designed to be urinated on in mind.

"Pokemon, Dragon Quest, Final Fantasy; all games that benefit from these random encounters."

What does this have to do with atmosphere? Furthermore, random encounters disrupt atmosphere by definition of the word atmosphere, so it would be a desperate point to argue against. If you disagree, why not have random encounters during cutscenes then? What fucking difference does it make, at this point?

random encounter in 3... 2...

"Sometimes yes, sometimes no." <--- Sometimes spoiled chicken gives me stomach virus, other times no. So it's not a bad thing by virtue of the consequences only sometimes taking effect.

"Depends on the dungeon, honestly, and this might have a little more to do with visual direction (IE being able to differentiate your environment)." <--- Translation: "Random encounters are so godamn important, that if need be, all environments should be linear corridors with low graphical detail in order to minimize the invariably resulting confusion of the random encounters. Of course, the easier solution would be to just have the encounters not be random, but that would be admitting that random encounters are sort of objectively shitty, so that solution is out of the question"

"It's usually a small animation to signal a transition into battle." <--- it's like someone fake-punching you, and you flinch even in cases when you knew they were going to do it. Because you didn't know when. How many times have you walked up to a treasure chest, finger all but wrapping the X button to open, but BAM "haha nope. Enemy first" Damn it, you startled me. God damn it.

Furthermore, the transition animations tend to be visually and audially assaultive and unnecessary. You dont get visual static and hear sound effects of tearing up paper whenever a cutscene starts or whenever you enter a shop/inn, bring up a menu, etc. Which perhaps says something about the nature of random encounters existing at all.

p.s. do we even agree on what the word objectively means? Because as far as I can tell, no matter what objective parameter could conceivably exist for judging a game (or any piece of media for that matter), random encounters do not help. They serve only to be a taint on the experience, and that's just the best case scenario.

#8 Edited by egg (1455 posts) -

@video_game_king said:

@egg:

You have yet to say why random encounters are bad, let alone why they're objectively bad. All you've done so far is repeatedly yell that they are bad (going so far as to use "glitch" as a pejorative) and that anybody who doesn't agree with you is insane and delusional.

Imagine having to explain why a disease is bad. Talk about profound!

Random encounters are bad because they are schizophrenic, they interrupt exploration, they destroy pacing, they butcher atmosphere, they pull you out of the experience, they cause your to lose your sense of direction (often you end up going back the way you came simply because you forgot, especially after an intense battle or simply a drawn-out one), they are often visually assaultive (they are basically internet screamers but we pretend not to know it) and are generally disruptive.

Furthermore by nature they can not be avoided or eliminated, which is not only mechanically broken (why be forced to fight enemies that don't pose a threat and no longer provide substantial exp by any means) but also unimmersive (every cave, one million goblins) and unrewarding. (each encounter essentially makes zero progress)

A lot of this is common sense though. We would not watch a movie that suddenly burst into noisy static every 10-30 seconds, then froze, then jumped you to a random part of the tape. Although on second thought evidently we would, provided it was a cultural convention for movies to be presented in such a manner.

#10 Edited by egg (1455 posts) -

@corruptedevil said:

@egg: Your insistence that Random Encounters are the worst thing since AIDS is stunning. Keep up the good work.

It's not simply a matter of exactly how bad random encounters are; whether they are the worst thing ever or just a minor annoyance. It's just the fact that they are OBJECTIVELY BAD. They have no redeeming quality and no excuse, we all merely tolerate them to some extent depending on the individual. Despite this fact, despite being OBJECTIVELY BAD we. refuse. to. see. them. die.

It is profound!