kiwidust's forum posts

  • 26 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Avatar image for kiwidust
kiwidust

355

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

9

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

#1 kiwidust
Member since 2005 • 355 Posts
I tend to finish games - if I don't that's odd. I also only tend to buy I 'know I'll like" so that could have something to do with it. ;^) Usually when I don't finish it because the game just didn't grab me - and most times I just can't figure out why. I never finished "Metal Gear Solid 3" or "Fatal Frame" or "The Thing" even tho they're all really pretty good games that I would say I liked - but they just never caught me. Then again there are games like "Enter the Matrix" that just plain suck. Also games like "Doom 3" that definately don't suck but are annoying (the whole flashlight thing) or just plain dull ("Doom 3" looked amazing but is really just plain dull).
Avatar image for kiwidust
kiwidust

355

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

9

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

#2 kiwidust
Member since 2005 • 355 Posts
FF6 FF7 FF8 and FF9. I really think square would make some money if they just had a team dedicated to remaking the old FF games. And SOUL REAVER, Eidos should remake it as one complete game. and MGS, as in Metal gear solid, The first one.Sushimaster
Square does have such team. This is why we have all the FF anthologies for PS1 and Gameboy. But as far as remakes go...well, there were a lot of games that were good but hampered by the then-current technology. I remember thinking that "Galapogos" (PC) was am insanely interesting idea that just couldn't be pulled off well on 486-class hardware. "Out of This World" was another one that had shadows of great to things to come that did succeed on it's hardware but could have done so much more. It would also be nice to see "Oddworld" back on the PS-platform. Of course the promise of cheap home VR is always a nice chestnut to bring out. The EyeToy has some of that base covered... but I've wanted real stereoscopic head-tracking even since playing "Dactyl Nightmare". The Jaguar promised this for soooo long then quietly died.
Avatar image for kiwidust
kiwidust

355

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

9

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

#3 kiwidust
Member since 2005 • 355 Posts

I think I might be in the minority here but this is bad move - Those disc feeders are much more susceptible to breaking and normal wear and tear than a top loading system.  I really wish they would go with a more traditional set up.  There are allot of mechanical parts in those disc feed systems that can break.  Disc trays like the Xboxes or even better the PS2's top loading system are much more reliable and add less to manufacturing costs.  I like the PS2's Slim lines set up best.  Nothing to break or wear out there.
 
-CMG-
You make some fine points but I'm nottoo worried. Sony has been building feeder system for car stereos for over a decade now - and it's hard to see a more inhosptiable environment for something like this than a car. Constant vibration, temperature extremes, distracted users, etc - if they can make them reliable in a car they can definately make them reliable in a console. ;^) As for me (and I don't think I'm odd here) I think it's also likely that people don't change the disc in a game console as much as music players overall. Some do, I'm sure, but I think most people pop in a game and play it through (I've not had "Dragon Quest VIII" out of my system for over a month). I'm sure there are exceptions (and I'm sure that like the PS2 the fact that the PS3 will double as a movie viewer will increase the "traffic" into the drive) but overall I think it's a safe bet.
Avatar image for kiwidust
kiwidust

355

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

9

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

#4 kiwidust
Member since 2005 • 355 Posts

I'm just wondering what everyone's favorite game of all time is.  Any system any generation.  I am also wondering what game really got you hook to video games.

My favorite game of all time is probably Final Fantasy 7 it was the reason I bought my PS1.  A close second is diablo 2 for the computer.  I spent way too much time online playing it.

The game that got me hooked is Final Fantasy for the NES and it's been all down hill from there

mattdatc
That's a damn hard one! "Ico" would probably be the one that affected me the most... perhaps not the "best" game, but the one that I always think about when somebody says "name a great game". The simplistic, yet utterly moving story and unabashedly artistic presentation just draws you in. You don't know these characters at all, but you care deeply about what happens to them. "Final Fantasy VII" would be on my list too... yes, I shed a tear or three. But as much as I love them I've never played them again. I know it's a cliche but I think the single game I played most often (or a least the game that I'll still play again and again) is "Half Life" (and now, "Half Life II"). Nothing much new in gameplay (well, not in the original) but the story was so completely engrossing and well presented - the ramifications are still being felt. But I still play "Half-Life" at least once or twice a year. Going way back I think the first game that really struck the way I like to play games was "Riddle of the Sphinx" on the 2600... or maybe "Dungeons and Dragons" on the Intellivision. Niether was much by today's standards but both had certain sensibilities that would eventually be part of modern RPGs that just really attracted me.
Avatar image for kiwidust
kiwidust

355

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

9

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

#5 kiwidust
Member since 2005 • 355 Posts
I agree that games are getting more difficult and more complicated. Personally, I have a tendency to overthink, over-analyze, and over-complicate things. I know I have been stuck in a game, getting frustrated. Once I get help or figure it out, I am often amazed how simple the solution was.xphile30
I know EXACTLY what you're talking about but I'm not so willing to let the game designers off the hook. We expect more from our games these days. Too often sloppy design makes us spend frustrated time attempting a solution that SHOULD work.. Your task: get into that building. The front door is rickety wood. The first floor is laden with windows. You've got grenades, a rocket launcher and a shotgun. Can you get in? No. You need to find the key. Why can't I bust a window or break down the door? This get all the more frustrating in games with some destructive environments... I can breakdown THIS wall with a grenade, but to get past THAT wall I need to overload the generator by pressing three switches and cause an explosion? Don't my grenades cause explosions?! "Farcry" had a lot of this - the game featured some realistic physics, but no way to actually interact with them (like Half-Life 2's insanely great gravity gun). You could, like a quadraplegic water-buffalo use the full weight of your body to push over a barrel... but you couldn't carry it over to the bridge and leave it there as an obstacle. Sometimes things just feel... I don't know, disingenious. For example we're playing "Luigi's Mansion" now (really great game). There's one section where you're told to find a specific ghost who likes to hang out in "rooms with mirrors". Well there are a lot of rooms with mirrors but one room is called "The Mirror Room". So you feel smart that you remember it, you fight your way there and... the ghost isn't there. He's in some other room (the wardrobe room). Now this isn't "wrong" or "bad" really... but dammit, you made you made me feel good that I "figured it out" and then took that away. It's like teasing. ;^) I'm trying to think of better examples... I hope you know what I mean.
Avatar image for kiwidust
kiwidust

355

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

9

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

#6 kiwidust
Member since 2005 • 355 Posts
OMFG I HATE sliding tile puzzles!  I can't do them to save my life!  :)  There's one in Trace Memory and I was about to cry cuz I just couldn't do it!  I finally gave up and just started sliding them around randomly and got it!  But I hate hate hate them, LOL!  :)
laserone
I feel the same way about rythm games. I LOVED "JAK 2" but I almost gave up just because of the Onin mini-game (which was, of course, absolutely neccessary to continue). All of the "Sly Cooper" games have also had some... even "Final Fantasy X-2" has them! Damn them! ;^)
Avatar image for kiwidust
kiwidust

355

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

9

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

#7 kiwidust
Member since 2005 • 355 Posts
Well... games are definately getting harder. (Although sometimes only for us Americans since games are often made more difficult for North American releases under the, I think false, impression that we all like hard games.) At the same communication is making things easier... remember needing to wait a whole month to see if the answer to your currrent problem would be in "Nintendo Power" magazine? Now's there's the Internet! Cheats on tap 365/24/7! Gamers are also demanding more value from their games and as I mentioned in the discussion on short games one way to do that is to make a game harder. A hard game takes longer to play. Games are also becoming more multi-genre. It seems like you can't play a game today without extra-genre "mini-games" (which, all too often, are actually extra-genre pains in the ass). This makes games harder too... you can't just be good at platformers any more because in every platformers you'll be doing rythm games, racing games, shooting games and puzzle games. But take heart! As old gamers we've got an edge. We know all the tricks! We've got all the folklore knocking around our noggins. We know to always go backwards first in any level to get the "secret" pick-up behind you. We know that you need to hit bosses three times to take them down. We know that bad guys will appear if you open that door. We know that a well placed ass can destroy almost anything... unless it's on fire or spikey. We know that "AI" is a lot more "A" than "I". Yeah we're slower... but dammit, we get there!
Avatar image for kiwidust
kiwidust

355

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

9

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

#8 kiwidust
Member since 2005 • 355 Posts
Jeeze... all you twenty somethings are making me feel old. ;^) Little hunched 34 year-old hobbling down the street while all you young kids eat Mento's and "Do the Dew". Well... I suppose I should accept it so... "GET THE HELL OF MY LAWN". (Feelin' crotchity today.) ;^)
Avatar image for kiwidust
kiwidust

355

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

9

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

#9 kiwidust
Member since 2005 • 355 Posts
[QUOTE="Yagami-Iori"]I'm gonna do the standard thing I do... wait at least 6 months after a system is released before buying it. There are all gonna be real pricey. I MAY get a Revolution on the first day, maybe.

What I was hoping for was that the Rev would catch on the HD-DVD boat, in an attempt to get that as the standard format, because DVD backcompatability is a nice feature.

Actually it looks like most Blue-Ray and HD DVD drives are going to be backwards compatible with existing DVDs - they just won't be compatible with each other. ;^) The PS3 will be backwards compatible with CD and DVD (in both cases both data and video/audio will be supported). I'd love it if the Revolution would be be HD DVD - then I could have both BlueRay and HD DVD systems but not get a new DVD player until either the format war is over or it becomes a non-issue with multiple-format players (does anybody care about the differences between DVD-R and DVD+R anymore?) I also won't be at all suprised to see a second, HD DVD edition of the XBox 360 come out in about a year. Yet another reason I'm tentative about buying one.
Avatar image for kiwidust
kiwidust

355

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

9

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

#10 kiwidust
Member since 2005 • 355 Posts
I'm in "Wait and see" mode on the XBox 360... so far there's just nothing compelling (at least nothing compelling that isn't also available on the PC). I may still depending on how the backwards compatibility works out (I never did get an XBox for the same reasons... but if the 360 plays a majority of XBox games I may consider it). I'm not too excited by it however. It' sounds "nice" - but not "rock my world nice". No next generation DVD and nothing that my PC doesn't do. (If you don't have a PC or have a poor gaming machine the 360 is pretty attractive - you'll be able to do "Quake IV" and "Half-Life 2" and lots of others... but I CAN do those already.) I'm intrigued by the next generation of XBox live (online was never Sony's strong point) and it's media player capabilities (but I've already got a networked media player)... but the exclusive games just aren't there for me. Then again I may just get one because, well... I can. And it'll be the only one out for a while. ;^) The PS3 is so veeeeery enticing. I'd be getting one in any case just because Sony has me trapped by it's franchises ("Ratchet and Clank", "Jak", "Sly Cooper", "Final Fantasy", etc) and just plain inertia: I'm a big Playstaion fan and the full backwards compatibility is REALLY attractive. Lastly since I already have an HD TV the PS3 will be the perfect starter Blue-Ray player. The Revolution is going to be backwards compatible, is going to offer all those classic games and is (most likely) going to be cheap. We never get very many games for Nintendo systems (let's be honest, they never have many games) but it's usually worth the cost of the system just for "Mario" and "Zelda". The only, minor, point I'd like to see is an annoucement of a GBA player (I was really hoping Nintendo would take the obvious step and build the GBA emulator directly into the system... but that's not going to happen). Besides, if Nintendo actually brings the active gaming experiences they're promising I may get one just so that my kids don't end up big and fat like dad. ;^) So... summing up: XBox 360, maybe (but probably); PS3 definately and Revolution almost definately... but probably not day one.
  • 26 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3