Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Squigsquasher wrote:

Squigsquasher wrote:No, I played the original LoZ as well, and daaayum, it was bad. Putting aside the technical limitations, we have:

>A "map" that is about as much use as a chocolate teapot (It's just an unmarked grey square).
Unless you get the map item, in which case the grey square becomes a map
You should start with a map to begin with
Why? I like "finding" things.
>A pitifully small amount of health to start with.
Man up, Nancy
Not all of us like dying over and over thanks to a pitiful amount of health
Not all of us do.
>A rubbish attack that becomes completely worthless upon losing health.
Guess you'll need some timing & dexterity, then.
Yeah, 'cause that's really possible with a crummy D-pad.
It is. The game's control was actually quite crisp.
>Absolutely no indication where you are supposed to be going.
Yeah, okay. A fair criticism.
>Almost no storyline outside of the manual.
Welcome to NES.
Just because something is typical of its era does not mean it is good. Otherwise we would be singing the praises of bubonic plague and witch hunts from the Middle Ages
But it does not mean that it is bad, either. You have to examine things in their context; that's why we can never know if Muhammad Ali was better than Rocky Marciano (he wasn't); because you can only ever be the greatest in your time, not of all time.
>Over-reliance on the manual (basically, if you don't have the manual because you lost it or you're playing it on an emulator, you're screwed. Which is ludicrous).
emulator implies that the Internet exists. I'm sure you can find an alternate.
Over-reliance on the manual is never a good thing. The manual in a game should be a quick point of reference, not an absolute necessity to beating the game
You could just as easily make the argument that the manual itself was meant to be considered a part of the game. Startropics is one of the best examples of this that comes to my mind immediately.
>No tutorials of any kind.
What did you need a tutorial for? Do you remember what the NES controller looked like?
How about giving some kind of help as to how to defeat some of the enemies, like the seemingly-invincible waterbourne rock-chucking thing?
Then you're not talking about a tutorial; you're talking about a walkthrough.
>Respawning enemies.
NES again.
See above. Datedness does not excuse terrible design
Whatever happened to "putting aside the technical limitations"?
>Lack of checkpoints.
Death used to mean something. You kids today are spoiled.
What, spoiled with games that you can actually complete without an Olympian expenditure of effort? Your point comes down to a rose-tinted view of your childhood-if the games of your childhood had been as easy as modern one and modern games were as hard as old NES games, you would be complaining that "All these modern games are way too difficult, back in my day games were simple"
"olympian expenditure of effort" is pretty hyperbolic here. I love the save-anywhere mentality as much as the next guy (especially considering I have actual mature gak to do nowadays like drive places and pay bills. Hoewver, this does in fact start to edge into the "technical limitations" side of things, as the memory capabilities of the NES were limited. Given those limitations, the game does at least a satisfactory job; and I certainly still maintain that it did increase the value of death -and thus, of not dying- in comparison to some more modern games.
>A death counter that basically taunts you for not living up to its ridiculous standards.
Did the big mean game hurt your feelings?
A game that forever taunts me for my mistakes when making mistakes is incredibly easy to do is not a game that encourages me to play it.
No, seriously, just how precious of a snowlfake are you?
>Generally absurdly difficult and poorly designed gameplay, which throws you in at the deep end and gives you absolutely no clue whatsoever as to what you're meant to do.
Yeah, it's definitely not Kirby's Air Ride
And that is the problem with it. I can't enjoy the story, the music, the world and so on because the ridiculously tough gameplay is in the way.

The hallmark of a good game is that anyone can get good at it within 5 minutes of starting it, and that you can get maximum enjoyment out of it with minimal expended effort. Games are forms of entertainment. Punishing difficulty is not entertaining. Imagine how much movies would suck if you had to solve quadratic equations to continue watching them every 5 minutes.

I disagree with your highly-subjective generalization. I think the hallmark of a good game is one whose difficulty suits its target audience, or at least can grow as its audience progresses. If I've mastered something inside of 5 minutes, then I'm bored after 15. One of my favourite games of the past few years was Borderlands, but my only real criticism of it is that it was way too easy. I prefer games that take some effort, and if they can force me to think, then that's even better. Imagine how much movies would suck if they constantly reminded you of the plot, and relentlessly repeated their exposition because they were written for someone in that fringe area between kinda dumb and slighty mentally challenged.

I think the mentally challenged thing is kind of offensive considering how vague the term is and especially how different some of mentally challenged people are in terms of ability like a person with autism to a person with down syndrome has different amount of ability, it also implies that

they can't understand more complex ideas.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
No sympathy from me. The LPers are trying to make money off of someone else's work.

Those damn rally drivers - they buy some car, then race it and they keep the money they make from racing instead of giving it all to the company that made the car!

This is different. People don't watch car races just for the cars they watch to see the racers race. People watch LPs to see the game instead of playing it for themselves. Sure, they may watch it to see another person's take on it but everytime I watch the person's voice seems to fade into white noise if I haven't played the game before. You can argue that the LP is "Free Advertising" but if you watch the LP in it's entirety what's the point of buying the game? To get the experience without someone droning on about it's plotholes or making dirty jokes?

In addition, race car drivers are very talented and have to work hard to not only get where they are but to do what they do. They also have to coordinate with several employees and modify their cars to get the best performance. It makes sense that they get due compensation for their work. LPers make money by playing video games and talking. They aren't doing any creative work at all. It's not even the commentary a lot of people come for it's the game. Maybe they'll come just for your commentary if you are good but most aren't. No matterw how you spin it, they are making money off of the game not from their own talents. Do people come watch a racecar driver just because he's driving a chevy? A very tiny few -may- but they are certainly not the majority.

If Nintendo really are screwing over loyal fans then why do these fans feel that they should make money off of nintendo's games? Shouldn't they just be happy to show people the joy and happiness these games brought and how they can be entertained as well? Isn't that a reward in itself?

To sum it up, Race Car drivers put in a lot of effort and they get compensated for their talents. Let's Players put in very little work and they are getting compensated for someone else's talents.

 KingCracker wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Squigsquasher wrote:

Peh, it's EA. No great loss. Nintendo are capable of making great games by themselves.

EA isn't a great loss? Have a look at the games EA produces and the huge customer base they generate? Nintendo is in dire need of customers. They WiiU sold terribly, the system has not a SINGLE system seller yet...in fact, what was the last "big" game that was released for the WiiU? Super Mario?

Nintendo struggles. They are trailing by a long shot right now...lost in the past if you want. All they released so far was another Mario Brothers, the very same game released for the Wii just in current-gen HD and with new levels. That's it. And now, we get a year of Luigi, you know, the most favorite character Nintendo has...and now that, Nintendo, formerly known for a very friendly relation to their users, slaps the same userbase right in the face? I don't know what's going on at the moment, but Nintendo needs to start getting their stuff right.

Actually the WiiU DIDNT sell terribly. Infact, if you compare its sales numbers from its launch to last month, it OUTSOLD the 360 and PS3 in the same time frame from their launches. The reason people keep THINKING its selling poorly is because people (Nintendo included) boasted about how much its going to sell at launch. They over shot their estimate by a huge margin.

Also, the EA thing, yes they wanted to basically have the WiiU be a micro transaction ATM and tried to cut Nintendo out of a profit more or less. So Nintendo, as kindly as possible, told them to frack off.

Cite a source?

I keep hearing this repeated on forums; but never with sources attached. It just seems to be the "new thing" about how EA is always cramming those dern microtransactions into your games.

Cheesecat wrote:I think the mentally challenged thing is kind of offensive considering how vague the term is and especially how different some of mentally challenged people are in terms of ability like a person with autism to a person with down syndrome has different amount of ability, it also implies that

they can't understand more complex ideas.

You are correct. That statement is an unfortunate result of my attempt to get around the word filter for "slowed" (<--see?) and my laziness for allowing myself to use a far more generalized term as a substitute for a more specific one.

As such, I do apologize and am sorry if I offended.

 Squigsquasher wrote:
Also, why all the GameCube hate? It was a nice little system with some great games.

It was a system that was poorly received due to not going the regular DVD route like Playstation 2 did (I went to a Nintendo product launch where they dismissed the PS2's ability to play DVDs as a gimmick, and backwards compatibility as unneccessary... We found once the machines were actually out that those two things were the biggest reasons that people bought PS2s instead of Gamecubes and Xboxes) and due to not being supported anywhere near as well as PS2 and XBox. 3rd party developers hated it because it was hard to code for, and Nintendo just gave up on it halfway through its lifespan so that they could concentrate on the Gameboy Advance instead.

I think Nintendo thought they where going to get Wii numbers, but that is proving to be more of a fad day by day.

What concerns me is the WiiU is pointing to the fact this mass influx of causal gamers have moved on, PC freebies, mobile phone games whatever, yet both Microsoft and Sony seem to think Kinect/Move is hugely important, while most dedicated gamers, the ones still hanging around drooling about the two new consoles generally couldn't give a feth.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Cheesecat wrote:I think the mentally challenged thing is kind of offensive considering how vague the term is and especially how different some of mentally challenged people are in terms of ability like a person with autism to a person with down syndrome has different amount of ability, it also implies that

they can't understand more complex ideas.

You are correct. That statement is an unfortunate result of my attempt to get around the word filter for "slowed" (<--see?) and my laziness for allowing myself to use a far more generalized term as a substitute for a more specific one.

As such, I do apologize and am sorry if I offended.

Oh, OK that makes more sense.

 azazel the cat wrote:

KingCracker wrote:I dont really blame them for this move. Lets Play takes a game, and plays through the game in question. Sure it has the potential to give free advertisement to the game, but it also has as much a chance to do the opposite, and cause people to say "eh, Ive seen the ending now, dont care to buy it"

If the ending of the game is the sole motivator to play it, then that is a hallmark of a terrible game. Video games, more so than most things, are about the journey rather than the destination.

That may be true, but the point youre missing is that the developers put in a SHAT LOAD of work to get these games to the store shelves. They deserve all the credit (be that praise or money from purchases) they can get. And some guy, making a buck off it, showing everything they worked on for free, sucks. So yea, I dont blame Nintendo at all

KingCracker wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

KingCracker wrote:I dont really blame them for this move. Lets Play takes a game, and plays through the game in question. Sure it has the potential to give free advertisement to the game, but it also has as much a chance to do the opposite, and cause people to say "eh, Ive seen the ending now, dont care to buy it"

If the ending of the game is the sole motivator to play it, then that is a hallmark of a terrible game. Video games, more so than most things, are about the journey rather than the destination.

That may be true, but the point youre missing is that the developers put in a SHAT LOAD of work to get these games to the store shelves. They deserve all the credit (be that praise or money from purchases) they can get. And some guy, making a buck off it, showing everything they worked on for free, sucks. So yea, I dont blame Nintendo at all

I suppose my opposition stems from my complete and total lack of understanding how watching a long play clip on youtube could be a substitute for playing the game yourself.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 KingCracker wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Squigsquasher wrote:

Peh, it's EA. No great loss. Nintendo are capable of making great games by themselves.

EA isn't a great loss? Have a look at the games EA produces and the huge customer base they generate? Nintendo is in dire need of customers. They WiiU sold terribly, the system has not a SINGLE system seller yet...in fact, what was the last "big" game that was released for the WiiU? Super Mario?

Nintendo struggles. They are trailing by a long shot right now...lost in the past if you want. All they released so far was another Mario Brothers, the very same game released for the Wii just in current-gen HD and with new levels. That's it. And now, we get a year of Luigi, you know, the most favorite character Nintendo has...and now that, Nintendo, formerly known for a very friendly relation to their users, slaps the same userbase right in the face? I don't know what's going on at the moment, but Nintendo needs to start getting their stuff right.

Actually the WiiU DIDNT sell terribly. Infact, if you compare its sales numbers from its launch to last month, it OUTSOLD the 360 and PS3 in the same time frame from their launches. The reason people keep THINKING its selling poorly is because people (Nintendo included) boasted about how much its going to sell at launch. They over shot their estimate by a huge margin.

Also, the EA thing, yes they wanted to basically have the WiiU be a micro transaction ATM and tried to cut Nintendo out of a profit more or less. So Nintendo, as kindly as possible, told them to frack off.

Cite a source?

I keep hearing this repeated on forums; but never with sources attached. It just seems to be the "new thing" about how EA is always cramming those dern microtransactions into your games.

A source for which one?

The sales on the WiiU versus the other consoles
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/446576/20130315/wii-u-sales-outperform-playstation-3-xbox.htm

And a video on it





As far as EA going bananas on microtransactions.
ALL Mobile games by them will have microtransactions. Not to mention many of their games have microtransactions as well., and thats after you buy the game already. Sure the mobile market is mostly F2P and many other companies have games with the micro transaction build in it. The problem is, when you start hearing rumors and grievances that all have the same problem its usually true, or at least spawns from somewhere. EA are microtransaction whores to be sure. You REALLY cant argue that one
http://beefjack.com/news/ea-say-microtransactions-in-all-mobile-games-seen-shoving-ps4-into-pockets/

 azazel the cat wrote:
I prefer games that take some effort, and if they can force me to think, then that's even better. Imagine how much movies would suck if they constantly reminded you of the plot, and relentlessly repeated their exposition because they were written for someone in that fringe area between kinda dumb and slighty mentally challenged.

One of the many reasons why I'm enjoying Hitman so much. You have to think, you have to observe, you have to be patient, you have to time it right. You can't just charge through it with brute force

 KingCracker wrote:

As far as EA going bananas on microtransactions.
ALL Mobile games by them will have microtransactions. Not to mention many of their games have microtransactions as well., and thats after you buy the game already. Sure the mobile market is mostly F2P and many other companies have games with the micro transaction build in it. The problem is, when you start hearing rumors and grievances that all have the same problem its usually true, or at least spawns from somewhere. EA are microtransaction whores to be sure. You REALLY cant argue that one
http://beefjack.com/news/ea-say-microtransactions-in-all-mobile-games-seen-shoving-ps4-into-pockets/

EA might be "microtransaction whores", but you REALLY need to expand your knowledge of what exactly is being done in the market overall.
Activision is far worse than EA, and Capcom and the recently released "Defiance" by Trion Worlds definitely need a mention in the whole "microtransaction" thing.
As far as EA goes, they're not that bad. They're not locking out entire swathes of camouflage patterns/color schemes/vehicles/outfits. They're adding "blind loot boxes" that you would have to be ridiculous to buy if you're trying to actually make up for avoiding playing the game.