DevourerOfTime

In 2014, XSEED began localizing entries in the Bokujō Monogatari series rebranded under the Story of Seasons name. Until this point, the games in the series had been named Harvest Moon in the west, but that name belonged to the original localizer: Natsume Inc. Natsume, having one of their biggest money-makers taken from them, began making new games under the Harvest Moon name with developers like Tabot.

Since then, the Story of Season and Harvest Moon series have, essentially, been competitors for the same "cutesy farming game" market, but are considered in the same franchise on the wiki. Understandably it's a confusing topic, as you have 90% of the games named "Harvest Moon" in the west not actually be within the "Harvest Moon Franchise" as it exists now (as they were originally Bokujō Monogatari games just like Story of Seasons games are), but I don't think the current solution is correct.

Personally I feel the Wiki, as a place to both catalogue and provide information on video games and their histories, should show the reality of the situation instead of erring on an easier solution. I propose we split the two franchises into what they are called currently: A "Story of Seasons" franchise page containing every "Bokujō Monogatari" game and a "Harvest Moon" page containing all the western developed games under that name by Natsume, each with their own retelling of this weird history. I would do this myself, but I feel like I should ask the mods and greater giant bomb community before upending the entire work of the current Harvest Moon (Franchise) wiki page.

So: should the Harvest Moon (Franchise) page be split in two franchise pages.

The thing is that, there's the crash, but nothing before the crash really holds up that well, so it's hard to say that, from a purely modern player perspective, that it was a dark age. It's just that video games were a burgeoning art form that needed to find its legs.

So if we take a purely post-NES launch perspective... it's really hard to point out a like dark age...

Like I at first want to jump to like the PS1 era. It's a system that, beyond a few genres like 2d platformers and RPGs, does not hold up well at all. And, at the same time the N64 has some classics on it, but they were super few and far between. Game Boy was really showing it's age and there were so, so many flops, like the Saturn, the PC-FX, the 3D0, the Jaguar, the Nomad, the Virtual Boy, the Pippin, etc.

But, even until 1996 there were just some true classics coming out of the SNES. The Game Boy saw a revitalization with Pokemon and, eventually the Color gave the system a last gasp at life. The N64, again, was dripping out games, but there are a ton of classics on the system. And even though 99% of the PS1's 2413 library is very of it's time, there are still fantastic games on the system that hold up. Hell, even the Saturn was a fantastic little system with it's own niche, reminiscent of the Wii U today.

But the biggest reason to dismiss that time was the PC, which would see it's biggest boom during this time until after the later PC crash until the mid-late 2000's. You had Warcraft II, Diablo, Starcraft, Grim Fandango, By the time the millennium rolled over, we were getting the last great games on the Game Boy, PS1, and N64 and then the Dreamcast just hit the ground running.

And let's not forget about the arcades. They would see a similar fate to the PC, dying by the early 2000's (yet never quite resurrected), but it was the last golden era of PC games with a ton of stellar fighting games, puzzle games, and, of course, Dance Dance Revolution.

My second gut reaction is the early Xbox 360, PS3, and Wii. The Wii launched with a mediocre zelda game and Wii Sports, but severely lacked software for a long time. The PS3's lineup was a joke for at least the first three years of it's release. And Xbox Live Arcade had not really hit it's stride yet, leaving Xbox 360 owners with a mediocre initial retail lineup lead by games that haven't exactly held up.

But portable games are what save that time period. PSP was becoming a system with a healthy number of must-have games and the DS... oh man, the DS. The DS was red hot following the 2005 holiday season, producing what I would argue is the finest library of any console to date, home or handheld. Just nonstop great titles hitting the system until it petered out in 2011.

The PC didn't have a breadth of quality, but a single genre seemed to keep it as a staple for games: the MMO. What I would consider the golden age of the genre gave us a ton of diversity in the genre and its biggest players, like Final Fantasy XI, and, especially, World of Warcraft, seeing their best years.

But the home console that picked up the slack when the HD era was finding its groove was the PS2. Some of the best games to come out on the platform came out well after the 360, like both Persona games, Okami, God Hand, Final Fantasy XII, Guitar Hero 1-3, Odin Sphere, and the Yaukuza games. By the time Persona 4 sang the PS2's swan song, the HD era was on it's feet and dishing out great games on all fronts.

The only other time in games I can think of is maybe the start of this generation? But the Wii U was fantastic after it's first year, the 3DS was amazing, the Vita had a lot of great titles, and the PC was putting everything else to shame, so it's hard to justify saying it.

tl;dr: there wasn't one, as long as you paid attention to all sides of gaming.

This list is more focused on competitive play and current meta, in which zenyatta is heals first, dps second. Same with the likes of ana.

But for supports, Zenyatta is still up there with Ana for best offensive output. Just know that's a secondary concern.

In quick play, whatever. Go attack mercy for all I care, as long as you communicate that and we have an actual healer.

As for him being nerfed, Discord was nerfed significantly, but that was more to do with team wide damage than personal damage. His orbs now do more damage actually, making him just slightly less of a threat against discorded enemies and more of a threat against multiple enemies in a cluster. His right click also got buffed, I believe...

I find the best way to keep your aim with each character is not to focus too much on them, but don't let them fall on the wayside completely. If you only play pharah for example, you'll get really good at playing around her splash damage and travel time that it will unconsciously affect how you use other abilities, like hook or junkrat's bombs or s:76's missiles. It's all about finding the groove you need to be in for each character and being able to switch to it easily.

I liken it a lot to playing multiple characters in a fighting game. If you play one character a lot, your hands will start moving on their own to do combos, even when you're not playing that character. If you're playing multiple characters, you really have to work hard at being able to snap into a different headspace, where muscle memory adjusts to your character and doesn't just take over.

I agree. Symmetra is being totally overhauled and both are weak picks who can be countered easily whose dps alone is both nothing to sneeze at in the right hands, but underwhelming versus the competition. With Blizzcon starting in less than an hour, both could see huge shifts in their style announced within the next few days. And with a two-tank two-support two-dps meta currently, you have a really hard time ever justifying their pick over a stronger character even within their niches.

I still think they have their uses, however small, and still should be put up in the discussion. Even if it's exactly what you're saying here. Basically: "hey, they have their uses, but they really, really do not fit in the meta right now."

Great thread. Would like to see Symmetra and Roadhog on the list, as they are the most attack and defence heavy positions within their respective categories (Symmetra is way more of a defence character than a support), tho Symmetra is a lot more situational and weak as compared to Roadhog, who only has a handful of situations and comps where he is not ideal.

Also, no Torbjorn? Like Symmetra, he's really situational, but he's amazing on Volskaya, Temple of Anubis, and Gibraltar defence; first point defence on King's Row, Hanamura, Hollywood, and Eichenwalde; and last point defence on Route 66. Also a decent pick on first point defence, last point attack on payload on King's Row, and second point offence on Numbani (tho second point attack on Numbani is one of the easiest points in the game). Hell, I'd even consider him on Illios Ruins when you have the point, as there's a lot of nooks and crannies that can make it hard to kill, but effective at defending. Again, not a character I would play in all situations and has some hard counters, but a character I'm finding a lot of success with in mid-high Platinum rank (he's my highest win% character). I'd certainly consider him more useful in more situations than Bastion.

Or just by standing still. You can literally just sit behind something (like on top of a doorway or behind a wall) without the team knowing its there.

Bad. And only getting worse.

Dragon Quest 1

Bang your head against an area until you have put in the time to get the tools you need to get past your current obstacle, head to new area, rinse & repeat.

Crunch.

It's not heroic. It's not necessary. It's not even efficient or your best option when meeting a deadline. It's just poor management that hurts your staff due to your own failings.

And, yeah, I don't care if this thread was meant to be a thread hating on developers for small nitpicks or legit design choices so you can inaccurately and ignorantly call developers "lazy" despite people largely not knowing how game development works.

I'm going to say an ACTUAL lazy thing I hate about game development.