Something went wrong. Try again later

Chroma_Auron

This user has not updated recently.

124 79 21 2
Forum Posts Wiki Points Following Followers

Chroma_Auron's forum posts

Avatar image for chroma_auron
Chroma_Auron

124

Forum Posts

79

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#1  Edited By Chroma_Auron

For me, absolutely nothing. Birthday coming up so I'm waiting. So hard to resist though.

Avatar image for chroma_auron
Chroma_Auron

124

Forum Posts

79

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#2  Edited By Chroma_Auron

I tend to prefer weighted inventory. Slot based could easily mean a rocket launcher and a assault rifle having the same size. Weighted allows you to prioritize and can add some balance to games. You could go with the super powerful stuff but at a cost to inventory space. So if you have low carrying capacity at first, you don't want to go with the best thing at first but work your way up. Etherway it's not a big deal to me.

Avatar image for chroma_auron
Chroma_Auron

124

Forum Posts

79

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#3  Edited By Chroma_Auron

@banishedsoul1 said:

I feel Retro gamers hype old games so much more then they deserve. Yes they were fun and i do agree gaming has lots some of its charm. But Gaming today is way better. We get some much more for the money. Deeper stories,huge worlds amazing graphics and so on.

This is a statement and a judgement against people who disagree with you.

What i think killed consoles most for retro gamings would be the XBOX. IT really pulled in lots of FPS fanboys and got ports from the pc. After XBOX live it seemed everyone had to play fps games.

What do you think will replace the FPS? I feel the reason why devs love it so much is due to it being easy to make then being original and they know thats all western gamers care about these days.

This is an opinion that goes against your statement

Do you feel that old games are so much better then today? If so why do you feel this way?

Now your asking for other people's opinions after you have made judgment

Do you know what your even saying?

Now to talk about the games being better these days. Do we have games these days that compare to the uniqueness and creativity of these old games?

http://www.dotemu.com/en/download-game/129/maupiti-island

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maupiti_Island_%28game%29

http://www.mobygames.com/game/kgb

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Die0L7sv0ts&feature=relmfu

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_Came_from_the_Desert

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTWd_eyAmgQ

Avatar image for chroma_auron
Chroma_Auron

124

Forum Posts

79

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#4  Edited By Chroma_Auron

Silly copy developers, Trix are for kids!

Avatar image for chroma_auron
Chroma_Auron

124

Forum Posts

79

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#5  Edited By Chroma_Auron

@hawkinson76 said:

I don't think there is a good answer to this. Reviewers need to match the playing habits of their audience. For mainstream audiences, that means playing on normal or casual, and not expecting multiple playthroughs (if you dissagree with this assumption, then GiantBomb's game reviews aren't for you, but Flight Club etc is).

What your talking about sounds like a marketing guide or propaganda piece rather then a Honest review of the product. That means lookign at it factual, ones opinion, and the difference between thew game not being your thing vs the game being bad. People have many different tastes. Besides, what you are talking about was/ (is?) done in Game informer over the Paper Mario: Thousand Year Door Controversy. The reviewer treated the game like crap despite thinking it was good. He did this based on the idea that the audience that reads Game Informer wouldn't like it.

However, we have seen that many games change fundamentally when played with the non-default settings. While I don't think every reviewer needs to explore all the options, they should do some basic research into what the differences are, and maybe point to other reviews that dive into those settings a little deeper. For example I found Arthur Gies' opinion on Bayonnetta fundamentally flawed. He blasted late game (on normal) enemies that did not trigger witchtime when dodged. Dig a little deeper and you find that witchtime is useless at higher difficulties, and players were expected to begin transitioning to parrying in preparation for repeated playthoughs for better metals or at harder difficulties. The fact that he didn't play through on hard is understandable (parrying isn't available without lots of additional playtime because it requires an artifact) but he should have known/noted that those enemies were teasing the change to the gameplay that higher difficulties demand, which would have been valuable information to those who found that witchtime made the game too easy on normal.

That's a big problem with your beginning statement. By that reasoning, one could say it's a crappy game because they played it on easy but playing it on normal , hard or higher could be more fun. The other issue to this is that you might breeze through it on the easier difficulties thinking it's short but someone playing on the harder difficulties will spend a long time.

That said, it is risky to assign a score based on non-default settings (Brad's positive review of Dead Island was based on the non-default "analogue combat" option), because I assume most people just look at the number of stars, don't read the review for the context of the score, and get pissed when they find the game (on default settings) disappointing.

If he mentioned that in his review then that is no problem. There are games that have crappy keyboard layouts but are full customizable to work great. It would be highly misleading to say the controls are bad based off of a bad default layout. The thin is that options are made for people to have options. If someone can't bother to look at the options or change things when they don't like the default setting then that is their fault for being lazy and stupid.

Avatar image for chroma_auron
Chroma_Auron

124

Forum Posts

79

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#6  Edited By Chroma_Auron

@OneManX said:

I think a lot of people jumped on it, b/c it was men talking about a female character and what she had to go through. It makes more sense for a woman to right a good coming of age type story starring a female, than a male. Iguess is what the quote was going for. I dunno, I found all the "outrage" about the whole demo dumb to begin with.

The issue was how they all were phrasing things and handling it. People were concerned about how things were handle and statements by the company didn't relive those concerns That interview with the executive producer did make it out to look like they were making the horrific experience that Lara goes through as selling points. Then an developer and the head of Eidos retracted his statements saying "we don't cover sexual assault in our story" (paraphrased) despite a video shows an almost sexual assault.

While there is a female writer, it doesn't mean it won't be sexist. We will have to wait and see if the game it's self is sexist or not.

Avatar image for chroma_auron
Chroma_Auron

124

Forum Posts

79

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#7  Edited By Chroma_Auron

I guess it depends. On one hand, many may chose normal by default but it maybe inadequacy to showing off the game mechanics that hard mode tends to do. I find hard mode allows me to really learn and understand the game mechanics. Also, I find games are often too easy these days so if hard mode is easy then you can easily get the idea that lower difficulties are easier. Likewise, if you find hard mode challenging then one can easily recommend someone to play it on normal or easy.

As some of the examples have shown, normal mode might feel like a button masher but hard might feel like a tactical game. If a reviewer didn't play hard mode, it could deter potential buyers of the game along with the review being inaccurate. You also have to take into consideration the reviewers skill, temperament, patience, and adaptability will affect how they perceive a game. There is no way a reviewer can truly judge how many different variations will perceive difficulty. At best, one could play on the difficulty of their choice that most accurately shows the game or explore it. In this case, the button masher difficulty would not accurately represent a game compared to the Tactical difficulty. They can spend maybe an hour playing on the default difficulty to confirm some difference.

Avatar image for chroma_auron
Chroma_Auron

124

Forum Posts

79

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#8  Edited By Chroma_Auron

I personally would at least complete the game. you don't have to do every side-quest and collection but if you think those could lead to a better understanding to the story or the game world then I would do as many of them as you can (Bastion). Sometimes a game can be completely different feel then from the beginning (alpha protocol) end like crap game play wise (El Matador) or story wise (mass effect 3). Some games like Puzzle Kingdom have their difficulty and game play balance constantly changing that you need to beat the game to get an overall assessment.

Also I would recommend using wolpaw's law sparingly. Unless it's truly awful like Big Rigs, then try to endure it, change your perspective, game play style, or play another day. Sometimes a game you think is bad is actually good and you may not realize it until you try again or it may not be your thing or genre but not a bad game.

When reviewing games based on deadlines, I would recommend play a bunch of short games while having a long game on the side. Don't wear yourself out that you hate playing games or dreading it. Take care of yourself as the game journalism industry far from perfect. If it gets to be too much, then get out and do your own thing.

Avatar image for chroma_auron
Chroma_Auron

124

Forum Posts

79

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#9  Edited By Chroma_Auron

@Chavtheworld said:

@Sooty said:

@Kidavenger said:

@iAmJohn said:

@MrAriscottle said:

@Chavtheworld said:

This is fucking terrible for software developers...

This.

How is it any more terrible for them than used books are for book publishers, or used cars are for car manufacturers, or used records are for the recording industry, or...

Digital goods don't degrade over time, a used digital game can be sold an infinite number of times and it never gets broken or lost.

Stupid argument considering it would take an extremely long time for a physical game to degrade to the point of it being unusable, at least in the era of discs.

and if you're banking your success on the hope that people are going to buy extra copies of products in case they lose, or break them, then your product is probably not worth buying to begin with.

Are you people stupid? Good grief, I've heard 3 people say they are against this (or insinuate it) so that's reason enough for me to not want to hear further. What a stupid stand to take.

Considering how most people treat discs, that's utter BS. Your second point isn't even relevant, because that's not what we're talking about. And everyone who doesn't see how this could be bad doesn't understand how the software industry works. This legislation says I can buy something like photoshop and just hand the fucking license to my friends when they need to use it. That kind of shit will lead to huge losses in sales, and when software development is so damn expensive, and suddenly they are losing tons of sales to people tossing their licenses around then guess what? They're gunna stop making that software.

Hmm, maybe developers should learn to not waste money. A novel concept , if I do say so myself. Besides, companies that make yearly editions rarely make drastic or big changes yet charge a lot and make plenty of money. I don't think someone borrowing a license or selling their license is going to kill them. Besides, if life has taught me anything is that, if you get too greedy, it's going to kick you in the butt if your wrong.

Avatar image for chroma_auron
Chroma_Auron

124

Forum Posts

79

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#10  Edited By Chroma_Auron

Bravo! A well written piece.

I agree with you on themortality part. It seems to be a lot harder to recreate old experiences with regenerating heath. With fnite health, I'm more cautious as even the weakest enemy can be a threat. I would compare the first call of duty hardened with Modern warfare hardened. I don't own cod4 but played it at a LAN center a few years ago. In one hour I breezed through about 4 levels while clumsily blazing through with the 360 controller. I don't remember much at all about the levels or any challenge. Contrast to the first COD where I remember it being intense and spending a lot of time on levels at first. The whole game was a thrill of avoiding death as mistakes would add up. Likewise, COD4 was intense visually but game play wise only in moments when not in cover. It would not be the same intense experience playing COD with regenerating health.