http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005 by the authors Mon, 30 May 2005 01:42:05 EDT http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/05/28/004215.php#comment-159912 I could never beat ZELDA II. Got to the last bad guy countless times, and kept getting my ass kicked. Gave up. Beat Punch-Out numerous times. Beat Super Mario Brothers numerous times. 159912@blogcritics.org Mon, 30 May 2005 01:42:05 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/05/28/004215.php#comment-159908 I know, it's very frustrating. I could never master that darn Super Mario Brothers. 159908@blogcritics.org Mon, 30 May 2005 01:23:41 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/05/28/004215.php#comment-159607 First off, I should have mentioned I haven't played HALO yet, so I can only use what you have written. I don't like to be sent TOO far back if I die. I know that I use save points because I hate to lose all my gear. I guess I don'y have any other suggestions. 159607@blogcritics.org Sat, 28 May 2005 15:23:52 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/05/28/004215.php#comment-159544 But SFC: If they just let you respawn a few feet from where the battle began (Halo), is that really a challenge? Is there any tension when you know you're just going to start back where you came in? RJ: I see that point, and there are countless games like that for me too (Battletoads). Look at something like Mike Tyson's Punch-Out. It probably takes an hour to get through and make it to Tyson. Yet, once you've reached him, you know full good and well that one punch is going to send you back a few fights. Lose then, you need to start all over. Knowing that going in, you're so tense during that brawl, trying to anticipate and over-anticipate, it's an amazing experience. In Halo, why do I need to be tense? There's no point for me to worry. I know they're going to let start back only a few minutes of gameplay, and even then, I can just die again with no penalty. 159544@blogcritics.org Sat, 28 May 2005 11:11:52 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/05/28/004215.php#comment-159464 In the genre of First-Person Shooters, the idea is kill or be killed, and the faster gun is the winner, death or avoiding death is the main objective. The adrenaline producing thrill of being outnumbered or outgunned but making it out of an ambush is something to be celebrated. The best FPS's will allow you to work your way through a situation in more than one way, but still have a few unavoidable bosses. It has to be challenging but winnable (Half-Life comes to mind). As for AI, I think having electronic foes that are hard to kill makes the game much more enjoyable. Sure the early days of dumb pop up targets was fun in it's own way, but the knowledge that maybe the target is smart enough to find a better way to kill you makes you check your 6 a lot more often. How about a great game like "Thief?" a game that rewarded stealth and cunning rather than brute strength? Very diffiult, but making it past several guards to steal something valuable with minimal bloodshed was tremendously rewarding. Also, the game world or tone has to be immersive and enjoyable, in my mind no game has ever beaten Duke Nuk'em 3d for this. Upgrade the graphics and let me paly it all over again , I 'd be a happy man. 159464@blogcritics.org Sat, 28 May 2005 01:49:51 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/05/28/004215.php#comment-159455 Remember RC PRO-AM? On the original NES? I could never beat it, and it was incredibly frustrating to be sent all the way back to stage one. So I stopped playing it. I think that's the reason why there are now unlimited continues. It makes it easier to win, sure, but it decreasing your frustration while increasing playability. IMO, of course... 159455@blogcritics.org Sat, 28 May 2005 01:31:49 EDT