Plasticpals's forum posts

Avatar image for plasticpals
#1 Edited by Plasticpals (265 posts) -


Putting Pikmin in the same category as those other games shows how little you know about it. It's a real-time strategy game. The part you mistook for "busy work" is resource-gathering, which is something you must do in just about every RTS.

Avatar image for plasticpals
#2 Edited by Plasticpals (265 posts) -

What a stupid, anti-consumer slant you put on this Austin. As someone who owns a large collection of games, I almost never trade stuff in. But I like owning a physical copy because I can lend a game to a friend, and if I ever decide to sell it, I can recoup some of my investment (or even make money down the road, as several games I own are now worth more than I paid for them). I can't do that with a digital download. And what happens when a service ends, or a game download is tied to a specific console like Nintendo has been doing?

I hope more retailers push back against digital code pack-ins. I feel like most of us would prefer having a physical copy for the reasons I stated, and this notion that all-digital is an inevitability is nauseating to me. (By the way, I can buy physical copies of games without ever leaving the house, often with free delivery, through Amazon thank you very much -- there is very little reason to go digital)

Avatar image for plasticpals
#3 Edited by Plasticpals (265 posts) -

    @sessh said:

    Also Nintendo has always been mostly bad at pricing their games if you think only about $/playtime conversions.

    In my experience most Nintendo platformers since the N64 average around 6-8 hours playing casually and 10-15 if you are a completionist. Of course you have games like the 2D Metroids that are meant to be completed in under one hour, but most people would have to play the game multiple times to accomplish that (especially if playing to get 100% item completion in that time). And the Zelda, Fire Emblem, Mario RPG, etc games average between 25-35 hours (if not more in some cases). So I'm not entirely sure you could really back up that statement, it seems you don't play Nintendo games and you simply don't like platformers... which is fine... but maybe don't comment on your perceived value of that which you don't play?

    Avatar image for plasticpals
    #4 Edited by Plasticpals (265 posts) -
      @sessh said:

      Call me an ass, but 40 bucks seems way to much for this and I haven't even played the original.

      Ok, you're an ass. Maybe you just don't like platformers or have no understanding of what goes into making a game? You do realize that Nintendo charges more for most of its platformers? $40 seems reasonable for a relatively innovative 3D platform game with high production values and that averages 8 hours of play time.

      Avatar image for plasticpals
      #5 Edited by Plasticpals (265 posts) -

        @gregalor said:

        It makes me sad that so-called video game aficionados, the people who should have the broadest minds on the subject, tend to enforce the narrowest scope of what video games can be (or, as they imply sometimes, are allowed to be).

        This is completely separate from what your personal taste is. It's too bad some people can't divorce those concepts.

        As expected you didn't address anything I said to you. Good job, that makes two! So I will ask you one more time:

        Let's say someone creates what I would call a "non-comic". They put comic-book style panels to give the impression it's a comic, and use comic-book style fonts, but it doesn't have any illustrations. It's just be one big wall of text, page after page. But they sell it on the comic book stand next to other comics and claim that it has a legitimate place there.

        Would you be defending that kind of creation as a "comic book", call people who derisively categorize it as a "non-comic" idiots, etc., or would you agree with the critics who would say such a thing would be better served as a book since it didn't rise to the standard of what we consider an actual comic book?

        Avatar image for plasticpals
        #6 Edited by Plasticpals (265 posts) -

          @finaldasa said:

          Who cares what people call them if they enjoy them? If I buy this game and enjoy my time with it how does it take away from the games you like?

          Also the dictionary definition of the video game is electronically manipulating images on a screen.

          I don't really care what your dictionary definition is if it's so broad it can apply to moving a mouse cursor on a screen. That may have been acceptable in the early days of the Magnavox or whatever but it doesn't cut it anymore.
          @gregalor said:

          When people care about the idiotic crusade against "not-games," that is, never.

          Good job, you responded to the first sentence without addressing the actual content of my post. By your logic it would make sense to make "non-movies". Like let's make a 2 hour movie that shows an empty room. People like you would say, "It's experimental! It's artistic! It's avant-garde! It doesn't take anything away from enjoying other movies."

          Ok, but is it a good film? Does it make good use of the medium's strengths? My point is, wouldn't it make more sense to show that same empty room as a painting or photograph? It's abundantly clear that this "game" should have remained the original short film it was based on, but please keep crusading for (and probably not buying) your precious non-games.

          Avatar image for plasticpals
          #7 Edited by Plasticpals (265 posts) -

            When are people going to start calling these non-games out for what they are? A game is more than just interaction and an artsy-fartsy concept. Games should have game play. I'm not saying that there isn't room for interactive art pieces, but don't make something like this and then pretend it's a game and sell it as such. For example, with a premise this thin you might sell it as an interactive music video for a hit new song that lasts the length of the song. That would be cool as a smartphone app or something and wouldn't overstay its welcome.

            But as a game, there are a million interesting things you could do with the idea of a blind person finding their way through the world that would involve much more than aimless wandering. And to be honest, the graphical technique they spent their time on would probably be better suited to a game about dreams or imagination anyway.

            Avatar image for plasticpals
            #8 Posted by Plasticpals (265 posts) -

              Seems like a waste of its character design, you don't seem to really use your trunk much aside from the water spout which is pretty poorly implemented. Like why not have the ability to suck/blow with the trunk like a vacuum? Or how about grabbing enemies or latches with it? Or grappling from grapple hooks in the levels? etc.. As it is, this could literally be any character and it wouldn't make any difference to the game design.

              Avatar image for plasticpals
              #9 Posted by Plasticpals (265 posts) -

                wtf... why are the graphics worse than Mario Golf on the 3DS?

                Avatar image for plasticpals
                #10 Posted by Plasticpals (265 posts) -

                  Re: Nintendo Power Final Fantasy contest

                  They did give away the 2nd place prizes, 50 crystal balls with the American Final Fantasy logo engraved in it. The 1st place prize was probably just a trip to one of the Hawaiian islands for a family of four.