I'm sorry, but I think Earthbound lives up to all the advertisements about it.
Not a bit of personality that isn't itself forcing itself to try too hard to be weird enough for itself.
It's like trying to enjoy a bowl of ravioli and then you realize it's missing something, so you pour some chocolate milk in it. Even if you can stomach it, it doesn't make it taste good.
As a lover of all things absurdist humor, I have to say
I fully understand the style of humorous bizarre nature on a deep and personal level and it couldn't be more forced if the game slapped the controller out of your hands and screamed "LOOK AT ME! I'M SILLY!!!
WOOOLOOLOOLOO!!!"
There have been so many versions of this thread that I don't even remember if I've said this before, but for me it's Super Mario World.
I did't have a SNES as a kid (because almost no-one did in the UK comparitively) but my friend at work was super into the game so I tried it and did not have a fun time. It was alright up to a point, but I didn't like some of the gimmicky ways that they had the map sectioned off. I'll always prefer Mario's simpler outings to his more complex stuff.
Give me Mario Land 1/2 or Mario World 1-3 any day.
No, we were debating about the fact that while it contains RPG elements and aesthetics, no actual 'role-playing' is ever actually done in Earthbound beyond the scope of the player naming the character, walking around, talking to people, getting items, and fighting battles; s'got nothin' to do with Personal Preference.
From what i know RPGS are defined by the player taking a role in playing the game , as in the different classes offer different roles and each class and in our beloved FF games case "jobs" allow party members to play role of a healer , caster etc while being in character like paladin players would be good hearted selfless people , the usual formula for RPG is characters having stats that determine their performance and of course since all RPGS are inspired by tabletop RPGs and that means a little bit of RNG is always there and damage being random is one of the those.
So having listed some RPG elements/pillars where does earthbound fail to achieve or go against RPG pillars etc?
The guy brought up the argument about Tales of Phantasia lacking role-playing elements similarly, in a response to me responding to another person when I referenced the game as being a better example of a jRPG on the Super.
While I couldn't think of any particular examples in the game, as i haven't been able to play through it fully, I know enough about Tales games to know what to expect here, and they're always full of great dialogue and situational humor for the characters; if not a better role-playing experience then at least a less bland one.
I played Resident Evil for the first time a year or two ago. I wanted to beat it, but I got stuck at some point and just never really started up again. I think it was against a plant boss or maybe right after one? I don't remember
First game is worth trying just don't expect great story or awesome gameplay it's just "ok" though the remake looks amazing and plays amazing i had a hard time getting it to run on my old lap but from the small bit i played the remake is what RE1 should be.
Half life gameplay formula is simple and is the motto of the game
RUN THINK SHOOT LIVE
The game came at a time when FPS genre was dominated by arena shooters , half life came in and slowed things down a bit then added a proper story as most FPS at the time had a story but not much care was given to it as FPS was mainly gameplay , half life follows a different style opting for environmental story telling and the "show don't tell" what starts as an ordinary day quickly turns into a disaster , half life combines puzzles and shooting well made enemies togther along with memorable voice acting and dialouge , the story and some elements like the Gman are shrouded in mystery making it even more ambiguous and "alien" , hope this explains a bit.
I don't think it's overrated, despite being heavily praised by many online gaming communities; it's the fact there are a bunch of people who emphasize it's merits too highly for what substance the game actually contains. The truth is, FF7 was highly innovative; I'd like to get into more detail about this but I cannot. Just look at all the backgrounds for each section and scene, and the graphical style alone ought to make my point for me
True you don't need to explain , some people just want to downplay it for whatever reason there is a guy here who keeps insisting FF7 is bad like it killed his family
So you gonna deem me a heretic now? Lol just some guys here made it look like the game was made in heaven or something , SPRGs ain't my cup of tea and even then i find the game to be blown out of proportion when it comes to very much everything.
Valid. But they had to start somewhere, taking the story in some direction. I feel they did a good job working with what they had, and while I too would have liked to have seen more, the fact remains that the game was never intended to be a mainline title and as such, was never designed with the same level of respect and attention to detail that a mainline entry would.
I just wanted to fuck around in the magical city or capital city or whatever just talk with citizens etc , also the lion war doesn't see much action on the player side like i would have liked to see armies clash or patrols fighting or whatever...
love Final Fantasy Tactics and probably always will. That said, I will willingly admit that it is an inherently broken game; the mechanics are busted to begin with and it's because of the way they decided to build the game, the entire system it runs is completely and inherently busted AF. Easy to crack wide open.
Doesn't mean it's not fun to play, but I'm not gonna lie and say the mechanics aren't broken AF.
But, those mechanics are super easy to take advantage of; it really isn't difficult to become OP, even without knowing there are levelup stat increases. The game is designed in such a way that most regular enemies you come across will be super weak to any character that's moderately strong, and the level of how OP you can become is way beyond what is necessary, even to overwhelm the hardest enemies in the game easily.
Yeah you can do some unholy overpowered shenanigans by mixing A ability with B ability and that's a game changer , enemies at least normal ones i think also dynamically level up with you.
Use Focus, then you can boost your strength up until it doesn't let you anymore. Another good one you can use that doesn't require you to attack anything is the Mediator skills, you could buff Brave or Faith and then drain them back down again. I'm just saying there ARE options.
Hmm..
So I guess the real question here is, at what point does another stat or status effect outweigh the need for high movement? At what point are you able to sacrifice extra move ability for something different? It sounds to me that line of thinking is based on your play style rather.
Yes i said it myself that playing the game in some way can effect how much you like it , the need for movement is essential to getting into battle or out of danger , with the thief +2 move you can get a base of 5 on most jobs or 6 or better yet 7! , but once getting the thief move ability it's safe to remove the boots but it requires some working for that.
The beauty of these games lies in the fact that they are so open-ended and there's no wrong way to play them; some of them might have a Right way, but there usually isn't a Wrong way.
That's why i keep saying video games are personalized experiences , your playstyle differs from mine we come across the same problem but our method of solving it may be different.
It's a nice change of the usual power fantasy , silent hill is a miserable game and a depressing series yet it's beautiful in fact very beautiful at least silent hill 1.
There have been so many versions of this thread that I don't even remember if I've said this before, but for me it's Super Mario World.
I did't have a SNES as a kid (because almost no-one did in the UK comparitively) but my friend at work was super into the game so I tried it and did not have a fun time. It was alright up to a point, but I didn't like some of the gimmicky ways that they had the map sectioned off. I'll always prefer Mario's simpler outings to his more complex stuff.
Give me Mario Land 1/2 or Mario World 1-3 any day.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
, your playstyle differs from mine we come across the same problem but our method of solving it may be different.
