FlarePhoenix's forum posts

Avatar image for flarephoenix
#1 Posted by FlarePhoenix (430 posts) -

I think Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time is the most overrated game, and only seen as amazing because it came out at a time when 3D games were first finding their footing. The story is poorly thought out, the characters were forgettable, and the puzzles aren't things you can logically solve but rather require trial and error to figure out what the game expects you to do.

That being said, the Water Temple was nowhere near as bad as everyone made it out to be. In fact, it was the only temple that was upfront about what it expected of the player.

Avatar image for flarephoenix
#2 Posted by FlarePhoenix (430 posts) -

Now that I've actually finished the game, I would say the whole experience was perfectly average. Not a great game, but certainly not a horrible one. It controlled perfectly fine, and I like the characters for the most part. I liked the fact that the "Mighty Numbers" actually felt like a team, and would help you out throughout the story. The story was interesting at times, but poorly told. It did enough things different from Mega Man that it didn't feel like a complete copy, but that meant some characters served absolutely no purpose to the story (Seriously, Blackwell serves no purpose other than to trick the player into thinking he is the culprit behind the whole affair) and the resolution was one of those "oh by the way" moments. A few interesting things here and there, and probably enough to keep me interested for a sequel if one ever comes about (I kind of hope one does so the concept could be further polished).

The voice acting and cutscences are terrible, I'm not even going to try defending those. The levels themselves were mostly unremarkable, and the enemies were unmemorable. The whole thing had a very generic feel too it. That being said, I didn't feel like the levels were awful. While leaning towards the easier side, there were some challenging moments. The Mighty Numbers were alright. Nothing too fantastic but nothing horrible either. I did find some of the designs to be a little weak but most of them I thought were fine. The fights themselves were fine too, but some of them did get a little unfair at times. Pyro is probably the worst offender of this, but he becomes laughably easy when you have Avi's weapon. My favourite was probably the final boss. It had patterns to figure out, and felt like an actual boss fight. If every boss fight had been to that quality, I would have been very happy.

I think the worst thing I can say about this game is the weapon upgrades. Aside from Avi's weapon, I never used the other the alternate weapons except for the final bosses, and even those I believe I used the pea shooter more often than not. It is a little disappointing that the alternate weapons felt really lackluster since they were often the main draw of the game.

Ultimately I had fun with this game. I beat it over a weekend which is about the right amount of time I would spend with this game. I would like to see a sequel just to see if they can learn from this game and do something better, but I feel this is a perfectly adequate first step.

Avatar image for flarephoenix
#3 Edited by FlarePhoenix (430 posts) -

@vortextk: I'm not saying that expectation was the sole reason this game was viewed negatively, just that people were going in with a certain expectation this game was probably never going to measure up to. Things like Shovel Knight and Stardew Valley aren't the same, because they aren't trying to be exactly like some other game from the past. Shovel Knight (the only one of those three I've played) is using the look and feel of an NES game, but it doesn't feel like any NES game specifically. It's not trying to fill the void of a specific franchise. Mighty No. 9 is trying so hard to be a Mega Man game, and it was sold as the "spiritual successor" to the Mega Man franchise.

Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not trying to say this game was absolutely flawless and people are being unfair towards it. It has a lot of problems and it is not a great game by any stretch of the imagination. All I am saying is without the expectations and legacy, this game would have faded into the distance with very little thought. Most people would have looked at it, seen it as bad to mediocre, and thought nothing more of it. The fact that it's supposed to be a "new Mega Man game" is the reason it is more disappointing than it really is.

I will say however the delays and problems during the launch, while assuredly frustrating to those affected, should not be used to judge the quality of the game itself. Things like the wrong codes getting sent out are annoying, but they should not be used to judge the quality of the game itself.

Avatar image for flarephoenix
#4 Posted by FlarePhoenix (430 posts) -

Let's be honest. Unless this game was absolutely perfect, it was going to be viewed negatively by the people expecting it to revitalise the Mega Man concept. I'm not saying it doesn't have it problems: the characters look bland and uninspiring, the dash into enemies mechanic was interesting but never felt utilised properly, the voice acting was mixed at best, and the level design was pretty bad (the amount of times I wasn't sure if the hole in front of me was one I was meant to jump into or not was not funny). That being said, the moving and shooting feels very good and dashing around remains quite fun.

The problem with this game is the legacy. People were expecting it to take up the mantle from the Mega Man franchise, and it was never going to be able to do that. Mega Man is too deeply rooted in people's nostalgia, and this game was going to look like a cheap imitation no matter how good it was. If this game didn't have the expectation going in, people would have just passed it off as a fairly average game with a few problems, but the hype caused it to look worse than it really was.

Personally I wish they hadn't ripped off Mega Man so closely. Keep the basic gameplay and weapon absorption concept, but change the story and characters somewhat. This looks like someone wanted to make a Mega Man game but couldn't get the licence to actually use Mega Man (which I guess is technically the case).

I wonder what you call the sequel? "Mighty No. 9 2"?

Avatar image for flarephoenix
#5 Posted by FlarePhoenix (430 posts) -

I played through about 90% of Buu's Fury for GBA without realising that, while characters levelled automatically, you had to increase their stats manually. I thought the game was incredibly difficult until I discovered I'd been unintentionally handicapping myself.

Avatar image for flarephoenix
#6 Posted by FlarePhoenix (430 posts) -

When they inevitably start releasing Event Pokemon you can only unlock with the corresponding Amiibo. Let's be honest, we all know that day is coming...

Avatar image for flarephoenix
#7 Posted by FlarePhoenix (430 posts) -

I don't know if I would say I am disappointed with this game, because I honestly wasn't expecting much to begin with. From the moment this was announced, I felt this was going to be little more than a novelty - something that would be fun to mess around with for a few minutes or so, but not something to warrant setting up my Wii-U. Let's face it, and I am putting myself in this camp wholeheartedly, most people are not game designers. Sure there will probably be a lot of great levels to come out of this game, but the majority of levels are either gimmicks (auto levels, music levels, etc...) which are technically impressive but not a lot of fun to play, or impossibly hard levels designed to screw with the player (which can be fun, don't get me wrong, but it's not what I want to play all the time).

This game made me realize the limits of the Mario formula. I know some people are just going to say it's my lack of creativity, but there just isn't a whole lot you can do to a Mario level to make it interesting anymore. It doesn't help the game gives you such limited options at the beginning. I'm supposed to use the very limited tools until the game arbitrarily decides I've earned more content, but they only give ten spots for uploading until some arbitrary star count determines I'm allowed to upload more. So am I supposed to be whoring myself online to get people to notice my levels in a vast sea of other levels, or should I just upload ten courses and twiddle my thumbs until I'm allowed to upload more?

Am I crazy for thinking the fact I paid eighty dollars for this game means I should be allowed to use all the tools on arrival? It got to the point where I was just randomly scribbling blocks all over the screen just to speed up the process when the game would decide to give me more things to use. If the content unlocking was tied to the 10/100 Mario Challenge I could kind of get behind it. If it was a case of "beat the 10/100 Mario challenge and you'll unlock more content" that would actually be worth something. It's a catch-22 where I want to upload levels, but I have such a limited space to do so I don't want to upload anything until I have all the tools, but the only way to get more tools is by making more levels (or, as I said, just scribbling on the screen). I paid for the product, I shouldn't also have to prove I really want to play the game.

The thing that really kills this game for me is the abysmal search functionality. In a game entirely relying on user-made content, how could they muck this up that badly. Only being able to search for a level based on an over-complicated string of numbers and letters is just appalling. How about letting us type in a name of a level? Or deciding which style of Mario we want to play? Or letting us search by user without having to already find one of their levels to begin with. What if I want a level with Yoshi in it? Or no power ups? Or tons of other things I should be able to search for? The fact it is so frustrating to find levels I want to play makes me turn the game off after a few minutes of turning it on.

Finally, where do you really go from here? Is it really possible to release another Mario game after we've been given the tools to basically do it ourselves? Why would anyone pay more money for a Mario game when there is a theoretically unlimited amount of Mario levels to play on this game I already have? Or is Super Mario Maker supposed to be the New Coke of video games? Nintendo showing us what it's like when we make Mario levels so we'll be more appreciative when the real Mario levels come back. Honestly this feels like a last ditch effort when you've completely run out of ideas on what to do with a franchise.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there are going to be no great levels coming out of this game. I'm sure some people will make things that are really fun and interesting, but it's not going to be worth wading through the bile just to get to them (side note: if I see one more "jump over this pit - oh and I put an invisible block right where you will jump so you fall into the pit and have to restart" one more time I might actually throw this game at someone. It's not funny, it's not clever, it doesn't make your level challenging, so knock it off!).

I'm sure I am going to get a lot of flak for this comment, but I felt it needed to be said. I love Nintendo. They were a big part of my childhood, but this honestly feels like the dying grasps of a once brilliant entity maybe better laid to rest. There have been so few decent games for the Wii-U - where is the Mario 64/Galaxy style Mario game for the Wii-U, where is the new Zelda game (not a big fan of Zelda but still), where is the new Metroid game, etc... Why are so many of Nintendo's flagship titles getting little to no attention on this device. For a console manufacturer that, let's face it, relies on nostalgia the fact there are so few recognizable titles on the system is really puzzling.

But I'm getting off topic. To answer your question, no I was not disappointed with Super Mario Maker. I wasn't expecting a whole lot out of it, and it delivered pretty much exactly what I was expecting. The thing I am disappointed with, however, is the search functionality. As far as I'm concerned, how terrible it is, is inexcusable.

Avatar image for flarephoenix
#8 Posted by FlarePhoenix (430 posts) -

I thought it was so when they were building the website, they could say "We're building a Giant Bomb".

Avatar image for flarephoenix
#9 Posted by FlarePhoenix (430 posts) -

@hatking: Well considering they were victims of the attack just as much as we were, I think the fact they are giving us anything is more than enough. This is one thing that's really going to need to be worked out if we are ever going to be able to move to an all-digital future: what happens when a service is forced to go down for whatever reason. I mean if a physical store was burnt down, would you expect them to give all the customers some sort of compensation because they couldn't use it for a period of time?

Avatar image for flarephoenix
#10 Edited by FlarePhoenix (430 posts) -

@jakob187 said:

I can see both sides of this argument as valid points.

On one side, inactivity against something abhorrent does mean that...well, you aren't doing anything about the abhorrent thing. At the same time, does that mean that you are a bad person because you aren't fighting against the abhorrent thing?

Let's look at this by putting the idea into perspective:

If America decided to sit aside during World War II rather than being involved, would we be bad guys? Well, we lambasted many countries for NOT participating in stopping the Nazi regime.

If a neighborhood watch program doesn't exist, does that mean that crime is more rampant? No, not necessarily.

I don't know. Every scenario I can find that would say "inactivity = guilt" is based on a case-by-case ideal.

With this "inactivity against sexism is guilt of promoting sexism" argument, I can say that gaming journalism has done a lot to showcase the sexism that exists within video games. At the same time, I can also say that the gamers themselves are generally sexist, even if they don't realize that they are.

So in all honesty, I just don't think there's a winning scenario here. It's an industry full of sexism, but no one wants to stop the sexism en masse. It's a difficult scenario. I don't think Jim is COMPLETELY right, but I think that Jim makes good points.

Except the argument isn't "doing nothing makes you as bad as the sexist" it's "claiming sexism doesn't exist in the gaming community is as problematic as sexism in the gaming community".