I find myself annoyed at how a lot of games are not adding local multiplayer for a lot of games or split-screen. I know it might be hard for your biased view to believe but a lot of gamers have RL friends that we sit around and talk with. I shouldn't need a LAN party or another TV and console to play with a friend in my living room.
I don't own 4 controllers so me and my friends can play pass the first controller around like we're playing together.
I hate when a game gives you a gamebreaking award for doing absolutely everything and you can't give it a good use because there is nothing more to do! It's totally pointless. It happened with Urban Chaos, Castlevania LOI and the GTA sagas. Just give me a new challenge to use it, damn it!
I read this was confused how an award would be problematic to gameplay. Then I realized you meant "reward". And I agree the practice of giving you things like unlimited ammo or a devastating weapon after you've completed everything there is to do in a game is a rather pointless and unnecessary. Then again, I can't see playing a game if they're going to give me a gamebreaking item at any point. Takes the challenge out and makes buying games pointless if you can rent it and beat it in a few hours. Guess the best reward is in that you stuck with the game long enough and enjoyed enough to complete it throughly.
I can understand it if completing some difficult challenge may simplify the rest of the game, or simply provide an alternative ending (canon or non-canon if there's any sequels). Some games, however; may require you to beat the game once to unlock a challenge. Completing the challenge may only provide you an award which greatly simplify the game you've already beaten. All you may be left to do is go trough the end-game you've gone trough previously, with no other change but the feeling of being overpowered.
If you really need a challenge that badly, make your own.
Also, games can be beaten over and over again and if the game is decent, you'll usually come upon things you've never seen before. Such as odd dialogues, hidden items and whatnot.
Also, games can be beaten over and over again and if the game is decent, you'll usually come upon things you've never seen before. Such as odd dialogues, hidden items and whatnot.
If the game got a good replay value, you can always start it over again; true.
If the so called "hidden item" you are seeking is in an area, which can only be reached by getting your current save file slightly altered by beating the final boss of the story; and if this item provide nothing but a boost of your offensive/defensive capabilities; and if this item can only be used in your current play trough, which you have already beaten; the item may easily be considered obsolete while perhaps being the most powerful item in the game. In some games: the only thing left to use this item for, is to kill all the trash you've already killed a few hundred times before. Not even the last boss is available any more since you've already beaten it. It could be like saying: "You've successfully been grinding everything of importance and of your interest in existence. You are now being rewarded with a better grinder, which look identical to the previous one. If you for some reason would need to grind anything ever again, you won't be able to use this anyway."
This is why I tend to go with games with a lot of text and speech. When you get really bored, you can always accost a random character and see if the game devs have some sense of humour.
Pfft, there's a way better vehicle you can get in the Guardian Angels mission not too long in the game.
Make sure to mute the video, the faggot who uploaded it added "music" to the video. :C
I filled all the garages on the first island with these. They're damage/bullet/explosive/fire proof. Other than drowning them or leaving them somewhere to get stolen or despawn, they're virtually indestructible. You even can tip it over and get another car to push it back upright without it blowing up.
This post has been edited by Robbie Pie: Apr 23 2012, 18:22
I read this was confused how an award would be problematic to gameplay. Then I realized you meant "reward". And I agree the practice of giving you things like unlimited ammo or a devastating weapon after you've completed everything there is to do in a game is a rather pointless and unnecessary. Then again, I can't see playing a game if they're going to give me a gamebreaking item at any point. Takes the challenge out and makes buying games pointless if you can rent it and beat it in a few hours. Guess the best reward is in that you stuck with the game long enough and enjoyed enough to complete it throughly.
Sometimes it's the polar opposite situation. Some games, often with points of no return along the plot, often with fun minigames and the such, which you might skip at first, but then would like to try once you're done with the main plot...but find out that not only they're gone, but there is no New Game Plus either, so if you want to collect everything you have to restart a new game.Golden Sun and the Mario&Luigi RPGs come to mind (No offense meant, they're good games, but having to lose all progress to get to the best parts kinda stings)
And God forbid if the game only has one save slot.
Anyway, Devil Survivor 2 after the second playthrough becomes pretty much an example of whatever Robbie said.Mostly because by then you can immediately buy the "carry over demons" and "unlimited fusion" perks and fuse yourself Satan or Lucifer. And are still forced to do all the battles against those low-level mooks with every playthrough.Sure, Alice is a pretty challenging bonus boss, but once you beat her the only other thing to do is to see all endings, and you can just save before the seventh day to do that (unless you screwed up the Fate system, which locks you out of a couple of the best ones)
This post has been edited by Zoro the Gallade: Apr 24 2012, 12:46
I remember the frustration when playing San Andreas and trying to jack the X-proof shit cars from the missions and get them in my spade's garage. Shit blowing up or the cars would vanish once in a while.
Videogames have claimed another innocent victim after they prompted a small child to gun down his own father for failing to provide a PlayStation.
Police in Saudi Arabia report the boy, aged 4 years and 7 months, asked his father to buy him a PlayStation.
However, when he returned home it became apparent he had not bought the PlayStation, and the child saw his chance for revenge when his father was undressing and put down his pistol, which he managed to grab and used to shoot his father in the head.
I wonder if Dead Rising 2 was trying to make me feel guilty by killing the retard tiger handler, Ted. After the first time I defeated him, and heard his death quote, I almost felt like a horrible person. I guess that that's proof enough that I'm human, feeling empathy/pity for something like that (especially with the "...pretty kitty." line"). Sadly, I didn't know at that time that you could "tame" Snowflake, so I had to put her down, poor kitty. That shit wasn't easy either, since that fucker had a lot of health.
Wondered about my playstyles when it comes to games outside of Turn Based/RPGs. As it seems to be as inconsistent as can possibly be.
COD4: Rush down with MP5/AK-47. Almost never stop moving MW2: Sniper/M16A4 1 burst kill. I hardly move and if I do fire I assure that it kills someone. 85% shot accuracy Black Ops: Mix of the two above. Position to position movable camping and rushing on smaller maps or ones with lots of corners.
SF2: Lame Ryu/Guile 3RDS: Yun Rushdown SF4 Series: Lame Ryu/Rushdown Cody/Footsie Rufus BBCT/CS: Lots of rushdown Ragna and Makoto and Nu-13/Lambda-11. I hear Nu and Lambda have a zoning game but I hardly bother. In your face, frame traps and overheads. I usually fall into never letting up or letting people come to me and almost never in-between. I imagine it's because the two paces make sense to me. Rushing you keep your opponent off balance and control things from start to finish. Or play it safe and zone while turtling shutting down an opponent's options to get in or play their game. Seems legit.
I find myself annoyed at how a lot of games are not adding local multiplayer for a lot of games or split-screen. I know it might be hard for your biased view to believe but a lot of gamers have RL friends that we sit around and talk with. I shouldn't need a LAN party or another TV and console to play with a friend in my living room.
I don't own 4 controllers so me and my friends can play pass the first controller around like we're playing together.
Sorry[Video game companies], you know damned well that technical limitations aren't the reason everyone is dropping split screen. Every previous generation had it, in times with much less powerful systems and few widescreen TVs.
You're dropping it because four players on a split screen are playing off one $60 copy of the game. Four players playing online need four copies ($240).
This post has been edited by Zoro the Gallade: Apr 25 2012, 14:29
General Gaming Chat
Apr 23 2012, 02:31
