This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

I miss the days when we got insane value with pretty much every game we bought

#41JonicArcPosted 5/25/2014 3:28:48 AM
Now are people really gonna call Dark Souls Hard? Now I know some people can be bad at this game.... but block -> attack, block -> attack, repeat.

Just memorize the enemies attack patterns. It's like remembering where the guards walk in a metal gear game. It's not like it's a chess game, it's just Dark Souls.
---
Why was another topic locked with no explanation? Did someone say something negative about a big MONEY console or game?
#42mjc0961Posted 5/25/2014 3:36:44 AM
noimnoturdaddy posted...
KidInTheHall posted...
Dat rose tint!

This only applies when it's something I haven't experienced in a long time.

Secret of Mana = rose tint memories, play it and it's actually ****

Final Fantasy X = Play it, and yeah, the first 8 hours are pretty slow, but from then on, it's really, really good, and with all the sidequests that open up, it can easily take 80 hours to complete.

Not rose tint there. Quality *and* quantity. Either a rare creative occurrence, or the product of people making games for more reasons than "money".


If the first 8 hours suck, it's not quality. That's called bad game design. Give me a game that's good from start to finish or get out. If I have to slog through 8 hours of boredom to get to the good stuff, I'm not going to play the game. I'll just go play something else that is good from start to finish, even if it's shorter overall. And then I'll play another game that's shorter but good all the way through. There are too many games out there to waste time on a bad one.

And this is the problem with all Final Fantasies really. Everyone says "Oh it gets good after x hours!" It's a bad game then. Call me when Square learns how to make a game that doesn't suck for the first 5-8 hours and I'll play it.
---
sirtonne posted...
This topic is so stupid I had to slap my wife.
#43The_DOAMPosted 5/25/2014 4:34:31 AM
Blobs_ posted...
As development costs exponentially rise, you're definitely going to see a lot more moni being taken out of game length, and overall game quality, just so they can get dem grafix mayn.


Nope as with FFX they spent to much time on the graphics sure there is less dialogue overall than the older games but that's due to voice acting. Everything else shouldn't have declined as people don't play console games like Elder Scrolls, GTA, or Red Dead/Fallout to be blown away by the graphics. Those games work from a gameplay perspective before working to improve the visuals.

Modern RPG's these days boil down to Modern Racing games as in the modern racer today lacks split screen/couch co-op multiplayer and their reasoning is that the game can't handle two screens at once. The question then becomes why build a racer so power hungry that you can't play co-op and why build an RPG into a hallway sim just for the sake of graphics?

The series that focused on graphics first are all in the toilet these days and the biggest problem with the decent RPG's these days revolve around voice acting. If they released another Star Ocean, Blue Dragon, or Eternal Sonata I'd be more hyped for that than any new FF game maybe even Tales of though Tales never gives an excuse for the mono ethnicity. Heck Eternal Sonata lacked ethnicity but in that game it made more sense given the games particular circumstances.
---
Ignorance is Bliss...
#44TropicMoon10Posted 5/25/2014 5:07:45 AM(edited)
JonicArc posted...
Now are people really gonna call Dark Souls Hard? Now I know some people can be bad at this game.... but block -> attack, block -> attack, repeat.

Just memorize the enemies attack patterns. It's like remembering where the guards walk in a metal gear game. It's not like it's a chess game, it's just Dark Souls.


Not everyone beats the game more than once. It's all patience and trial-and-error. Any first playthrough will be hard, unless you're some sort of psychic or you spend every second looking up walkthroughs.
---
http://i.imgur.com/N9lTE.jpg
#45noimnoturdaddy(Topic Creator)Posted 5/25/2014 5:57:25 AM
seasloth21 posted...
You realize the souls series is renowned for having one of the best combat systems EVER?

No, it's renowned for being one of the most punishing games ever.

seasloth21 posted...
Who on earth talks about ffx like that?

Lots of people.


seasloth21 posted...
Then you said it was a low quality game, which is beyond absurd.

No, I said DS2 is low quality. DS1 and DeS are much better.

BendoHendo posted...
Don't act as if Final Fantasy X was the last game to deliver 100 hours of gameplay.

I'm not. Again, talking quality here, not just length.

TimePharaoh posted...
$80 for 20 minute long NES games?

Dat value


ITT: Child

I got Zelda 2 for $60 when it was new, and it was short, but it's one of the best games I've ever played. Also this is, again, going into the idea that "time played" signifies value more than "quality of time played". $80 for a 20 minute game? Please. And you're also failing to take into consideration how limited tech was back then, which is a large reason games were so short. "Kid Icarus" is another amazing game from that era, but once you know what you're doing, you can beat that one in about 3 hours as well.
---
"Are you Ron Swanson?" - CatToy to me, upon realizing what a manly man I am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBVDKCAbawA
#46wdfosterPosted 5/25/2014 6:06:26 AM
ITT FFX = best game ever

apparently
---
Steam ID - BarneyRound
#47noimnoturdaddy(Topic Creator)Posted 5/25/2014 6:16:56 AM(edited)
Illuminoius posted...
how can you say that a game is so amazing when it takes eight freaking hours to start up

Because that's common with any JRPG I've ever played. "Lord of the Rings" doesn't start taking off until about 1/3 of the way through the first book, with several points through the trilogy where it drops the pace back into being an overly-descriptive slogfest, yet that's universally acclaimed as the greatest fantasy trilogy ever written.

I think it's something that's common with any work of fiction that has a lot of depth. It spends a lot of time building the world, before getting the action going. It'll slog in a lot of areas while it fills in all the details, but it's also part of the reason those works are so good.

mjc0961 posted...
If the first 8 hours suck, it's not quality. That's called bad game design.

Only for the first 8 hours, which is maybe 10% of the game.

mjc0961 posted...
Give me a game that's good from start to finish or get out.

This is extremely rare, though. Even "Braid", which I think is one of the best games ever made, has puzzle rooms that don't feel very inspired and drag on. I don't know how anyone with your mentality finishes any game, considering every game that's ever been made has spots that scream "bad game design".

mjc0961 posted...
If I have to slog through 8 hours of boredom to get to the good stuff, I'm not going to play the game.

Understood, but that doesn't make you an expert on how good the other 90% of the game is, and while I understand why people have your mentality, they're missing out.

mjc0961 posted...
I'll just go play something else that is good from start to finish, even if it's shorter overall.

Name one game that doesn't hiccup anywhere from start to finish.
---
"Are you Ron Swanson?" - CatToy to me, upon realizing what a manly man I am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBVDKCAbawA
#48noimnoturdaddy(Topic Creator)Posted 5/25/2014 6:15:10 AM(edited)
mjc0961 posted...
And this is the problem with all Final Fantasies really. Everyone says "Oh it gets good after x hours!" It's a bad game then. Call me when Square learns how to make a game that doesn't suck for the first 5-8 hours and I'll play it.

I think you mean it's a problem with all JRPGs, since their initial focus is on getting you up to speed on the world and the characters/political atmosphere before letting you get to the meat of the game, because they're supposed to be fantasy epics, not a shooter you can get through with a weekend rental. I think "Lost Odyssey" is one of the best JRPGs ever made, and that's in large part due to how deep the story is, even though that does basically mean the gameplay aspect doesn't start taking off until Disc 3.

Another great example is the "Xenosaga" trilogy on PS2. Taking a long time to get out of the heavy story focus =/= **** game, it means you need to know what you're getting into and be willing to give it a chance. People seem to complain about games that have no depth, but a big problem is that they don't have the patience to let it happen. "This game has no depth, I don't have the patience for games with depth, I'm going to find another game to complain about having no depth."
---
"Are you Ron Swanson?" - CatToy to me, upon realizing what a manly man I am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBVDKCAbawA
#49noimnoturdaddy(Topic Creator)Posted 5/25/2014 6:11:11 AM
wdfoster posted...
ITT FFX = best game ever

apparently

No, just one that's up there. There's also Bioshock, System Shock 2, Zelda 2, Majora's Mask, Lufia 2, Metroid Prime, Counter-Strike, Super Meat Boy, Braid, Oath in Felghana...
---
"Are you Ron Swanson?" - CatToy to me, upon realizing what a manly man I am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBVDKCAbawA
#50Killah PriestPosted 5/25/2014 6:20:51 AM
Too bad final fantasy x and x2 were awful.
---
Laugh, and the world laughs with you. Weep, and you weep alone.
The armory of god is guarding me but all you can see is holographic artistry.