Combos, I like that. I was trying to think about fighting game innovations, and the only think I could really come up with is like.. counters.
Super meter. Super meter used for things other than supers. Air dashes. Chains. Push blocking, instant blocking. Parries. Focus attacks.
Look at early SNK fighters and the oddball Capcom fighters like Darkstalkers and JJBA for fighting game innovations.
I feel somewhat sad there aren't that many thinker's games out there (and I don't mean board games and puzzles here obviously), it's almost as if there is no market for them. But, looking at the cult following games like Deus Ex and Torment have, this can't be true, can it?
I think the problem here lies in not that people don't want the games, it's that _enough_ people don't want the games, because "enough" nowadays is a very huge number.
While Deus Ex, for its time, was a big game, in comparison to the budgets games have nowadays it's nothing. Most of the games the big companies make simply can't afford being cult games, they have to be mainstream smash hits to make up for their vast budgets.
Also, a game like Deus Ex requires skill, both technical and creative, and I think that while the market is overflowing in technical skill nowadays, there's a lot less creative going around.
However, this video assumes that nobody has critical thinking ability, or the ability to understand the construction of corporate media. The people who made this video have obviously never heard of the introspective illusion, or they would never have said half the things they did.
Wouldn't the speech from the student say otherwise? According to that speech, ALL thinking is critical thinking by nature.
What's with the structure of the show? It's just one guy making "witty" comments while showing Youtube-clips for two hours?
One of my favorite details about Deus Ex is very early in the game.
* Slight possible spoiler *
At the end of the first level, after you deal with the terrorist leader in any way you've chosen, a soldier comes up and tells you that they've cleared out all the terrorists (essentially that the level is finished). Now, you can go down and talk to the boss and get some credit. However, if you shoot this soldier, right after the usual conversation with the boss, he'll add on a last line. "By the way, we sent up a soldier after you, but he wasn't heard from. Do you know what happened? We're starting an investigation."
* End spoiler*
Few things are as great as a game that cares about details as small as that.
Re: Planescape: It is true that the combat system is quite unwieldy (and that playing the CD-versions have way too much disc switching). And while story has started taking up more and more space in games (probably more due to Final Fantasy than Planescape), they sadly don't copy the most important aspect of Torment: the superb writing.
Huh? Do you mean reallyjoel's dad difficulty? The one that's a joke difficulty level which is pretty much physically impossible until someone enables TAS conditions?
No, I mean the second hardest. I just don't remember its name and don't have a game with me at the moment. I wouldn't bother going full pacifist on Ultimortal, that's just too much.
More to the point, it would also be impossible (you can't skip a few vital encounters endgame in ultimortal difficulty). If you learn to tech a (mostly) pacifist run on ultimortal isn't that hard (and Maximum Charge Tor is the best part of the game, you have to play that if you haven't).
Also, replaying Planescape: Torment and exploring the various dialogue options is a huge part of the games quality. I would advise you to replay it with a different mindset when it comes to choices - It makes a big difference in that game.
Now, having two TASers play a 2-player game competitively, (Each frame would be a "turn" with each revealing their input value to the other at the end)... That might have potential for depth, assuming the game in question itself had deep enough play mechanics.
Toribash?
sgeos wrote:
This could be awesome in the right fighting game.
Most fighting games would be horribly dull in frame by frame.
Turtling and then responding to any commitment with an invincible move would be unbeatable, unless the game supports empty cancels, in which case jabs with a buffered invincible move would be unbeatable.
http://dehacked.2y.net/microstorage.php/info/1169946961/Shadowrun%20-%20move%20outside.smv
While playing a bit lazily I randomly stumbled upon this. I was walking out from the station, got attacked by a Hitman and the camera stopped following me. The result was that I could move around a bit like I pleased. You'll notice the Hitman doesn't keep attacking me, but I still seem to follow the rules of the current map (exits etc), so if we manage to find out how to repeat this glitch, it could be very useful for getting through the towers without need for invisibility or the like.
I hate that I wasn't recording when it happened. The end of the movie is me trying to recreate the glitch, failing.
Shyft- - Great that you're interested in this! It somehow just got shoved away to do other stuff for me, but I wouldn't mind restarting it.
My route is probably not optimal, and I'll have to see if you can do a DPS that's worth it with the magic bomb compared to the weapons.
The karma probably isn't needed anymore by the time you get to Volcano, so the Naga trick is probably meaningless.
A bot that brute forces luck manipulation during fights would be extremely useful.
That aspect of it I indeed liked, as well as the writing (which drags the game out of a huge "shit, we missed the deadline" pit quite magnificently), but pretty much all the rest was either unfinished, unbalanced, or plain bad.
Well, yeah, the writing (and everything that comes with it, story, characters etc) is the games main saving grace, but damn if it isn't one fantastic saving grace.
Indeed, this is very often the case. But it rather goes the other way around: the problem with consoles is that quality control is way more lenient, and their users are considerably more lazy. It's a topic for a different discussion, but I'll point out that arcade games had to adhere to a lot of rules that would spell their doom lest a single one is ignored:
1) make the game look interesting, or the customer goes away;
2) make the difficulty balanced, or the customer will become too frustrated;
3) make the game play interesting, or the customer will play something else;
4) make the game challenging, or the player will beat it too soon;
5) remove all the padding from a game, or the player will spend more time on each credit.
It's all pretty hard when a game forces you to pay for each playing session, and every session has to be as short as possible for maximum revenue. Suddenly you have to make every minute of the gameplay worth the investment, something that console developers are not forced to do. In this respect the arcades are infinitely superior to every console, ever. And they're basically killed by laziness nowadays, because the current generation of gamers are afraid of games that take 100+ retries before they are beaten (even though most of us grew on such games).
I see your point, and I'm quite willing to agree with most of it. However, arcades have a tendency of stalling progress, as well. It takes one bold motherfucker to change something big in an arcande game, especially in a huge project. If users buy a game, the company gets all their money and the amount of time spent playing doesn't matter, but if they screw up an arcade game, it could end up only earning one credit per player. Creativity has a tendency of alienating people unless done with either a great amount of skill or an even greater amount of luck.
There need to be platforms that allows people to screw around with the medium and at the same time not possibly blowing all chances of profit.
It might have had something to do with lower standards as well, or the love for challenge (I know I was among the few who opted to beat pretty much every game they received, but nearly none of my friends could say the same). Then again, monetary reasons don't stand the test of time: I certainly didn't play the hell out of some of the last decade's games because I couldn't afford more.
Oh yeah, children doesn't have any standards at all. No doubt that I gobbled up pretty much anything when I was a kid. If you take a look at anything aimed at kids that's popular, it's really, really crap, but they like it anyway since they have no standards.
Well, Treasure's Silhouette Mirage (a PS1 game, iirc) had the novelty of changing the player character's "polarity", but it was barely heard of. Ikaruga (where Treasure applied the same mechanic to a shmup), on the other hand, is known by most of the active gamers. Which of them give bonus points to? To the one that plays better, I guess. Poorly implemented novelty isn't worth much.
Yeah, there's again that alienating aspect. Some creative games simply doesn't get the amount of recognition they oughta. The single best exampe of this would be Narbacular Drop, the predecessor to Portal. Portal was widely claimed to be game of the year, the most creative game in a long time etc, but it's based on a small indiegame that, to be honest, didn't implement portals nearly as well.
they were playing video games long before we did
childhood
FFVII
I believe you are wrong in your idea of the age of the average user here.
It's because it was historically significant. SMB1 basically redefined the 2D platformer genre. It set the standard for every other 2D platformer game at the time. And then some. Before SMB1, most (if not all) video games were fixed, non-scrolling screen affairs (Pac-Man, Donkey Kong, Mario Bros., Pitfall, Space Invaders, etc.). SMB1 changed that forever.
But this isn't a "top 100 most important games to gaming", this is a "top 100 best games". Being the first very, very seldomly means you're the best. And even if the list was heavily based upon historical significance, why are there only (according to statement earlier in thread) 9 games made before 1995 in it? The vast majority of genres today were created during '85-'95. Pretty much the entire list should consist of the games who created and redefined various genres.
So either a) they truly believe SMB to be the utterly best game ever or b) they ignore the historical significance of all other games. And in both of those cases, it's a) silly, b) stupid and most likely, c) hypocritical.
Being or not being RPG has nothing to do with it in general, the fun of the process still is the thing that truly matters. RPGs just dont usually happen to be pick-up-and-play type of games, which basically means you have less fun restarting, less fun having to do repetitive tasks, and so on. I don't give two shits about plot twists if the game forces me to grind or do a zillion of fetch quest to reach them. I don't mind challenge, but I don't particularly like subjecting myself to tedium to experience short moments which may or may not actually be fun. Which is also why I don't play many RPGs. Torment was actually the most recent one that I bothered to finish (in early 2004 or so). For jRPGs it was Last Scenario, and it was actually fun throughout. Between them there were Icewind Dale 2 and Baldur's Gate, and I stopped halfway through in either, because it started to get tedious. They were supposedly good, but I don't think I'll ever get around to finishing them. Too bad.
This is part of the reason I choose Torment as the example. It has very little grinding (unless you want to), very little fetchquesting (unless you want to) and in general, very little outside of the main story you're forced to do. It got loads of stuff to do, but very little it actually forces you to do to further the plot.
Actually, arcade games are very much built around the idea of per-process fun. There are no clear goals announced, there is little to no "extra content" or other such incentives to replay the game. These games that are meant to be replayed, and that's why they are fun in the first place.
So the arcade as a platform is generally superior to consoles because the games HAVE to be designed with replayability in mind?
I'm pretty sure it also is the real reason behind the longevity of SMB/SMW/SM64 series, Metroid games, Sonic games and so on: they put the focus on the gameplay process. Historical reasons were a far lesser factor of their longevity.
Personally, monetary concerns were also part of the reason. When you couldn't afford more then one game every second month or so, that one game damn better well be played until every single option has been exhausted.
In my book, yes. Obviously you can think otherwise, but I wouldn't think of buying a game I could only enjoy once.
I used Phoenix Wright as an example since it's touted by many as one of the DS' finest games. But yeah, I guess that visual novels falls into a quite different genre (or perhaps even medium, depending on how far you want to stretch the definition) from regular games, even though PW is slightly more interactive than your usual visual novel.
Basically, that. You can compare any games as soon as you strip them off their technological form (and respective advances/breakthroughs), because content doesn't age. If a game isn't fun to play ten years after release, it means its true value wasn't high in the first place, and no amount of vocal fan support would change that.
So games doesn't get bonus points for novelty? Many games have had interesting gimmicks or features that made it entertaining, but other games afterwards copied, and the gimmick became standard and not something special in subsequent games.
Cardboard - Because it's freaky as hell.
It's not as much "which game they rank" as it is "let them beat every game once and see which one they play the most after that". Because that basically consustutes the fun factor of any game, ever: as soon as the plot twists, secret endings, and unlockable characters are behind, the only thing left that matters is, that's right, the gameplay process. And it's not as easily influenced as verbal representation of the said rank, because people pathologically like to convince themselves of things that should be, but aren't there.
Planescape: Torment is extremely story- and character-heavy, it's not a game you can replay over and over. You have to let quite some time pass between each playthrough to really enjoy it. Does that make it a bad game?
Fighting games HAVE to be replayed instantly and over and over to get any real satisfaction out of them. Does that mean every fighting game is a top 10 candidate?
Games like Professor Layton and Phoenix Wright are essentially room-by-room puzzle games, with nearly no satisfaction from the gameplay after the initial playthrough. The only reason to replay any of them would be the humor (Perhaps not Layton so much...). Does that mean that these are terrible games?
To add to the other currently discussed subject: Ocarina of Time ranks quite a bit up on the ladder if we're taking "historical significance" into the equation, but if compared to current-day adventures (even ignoring the graphical aspect), it's not a masterpiece in any area, really. The controls aren't very good (aided by the fact that you play it with the N64 controller), there's a lot of filler and fetch-questing and there's very little challenge. Majora's Mask, on the other hand... Now that's quality.
I don't know if it has been recommended (didn't find anyone mentioning it in a quick skim through the thread), but I figure it's worth promoting (possibly again) anyway:
Have you seen The Man From Earth, Fabian? It's one of the best movies I've seen in the last couple of years. It's about a man who claims he's really a caveman that simply haven't died, and then the entire movie is dialogue between the cast, which consists of various scholars and professors. It's low-budget, pretty much nothing at all outside of talking happens, but the script is amazing and it all just plays out beautifully.
If you're looking for something with a bit more substance after a slew of zany comedies and musicals, well, give it a shot.
Dammit - Thank you very much! It's lovely that you were able to find those. Will eliminate a fair bit of pointless trial and error.
Rick - Thank you, but I sadly have no need for the code.
Saturn - Never anything wrong with getting rid of some dull trial and error to check when the charge is ready.
This should allow for truly infinite combos, something I didn't thought would ever be possible in SSF2. All in all the run looks great so far, so good luck on further progress if you plan to finish it.
Thanks. Also, well, you can't get truly infinite combos - They'll dizzy after a while. You can of course get redizzy combos over and over, but that's been a staple of SF2 for as long as I can remember.
I've been making very little progress, being stuck at an annoying problem - Due to having to accumulate charge, I precisely can't get three Sonic booms in a row to combo. Would look way slick, but is seemingly impossible. Also, I would like to request some help: I don't know if it's because the game hides them well or I'm just bad at searching, but I've been unable to find the memory addresses that somehow indicates either how much charge you got or how much charge is left or anything of the sort. If anyone knows or is able to find whatever address handles the charging time, I would appreciate it awfully much.
That monkey sure keeps wallhacking in later levels. That's so cheap.
Anyway, this was more entertaining then the regular run, but, well, it's still Aladdin, still not the best game in the world to watch.
8 or so on entertainment, and no idea on tech.
Yeah, but instead of fighting CPU players in the hardest dificulty (what means nothing in a TAS... it only makes the run slower, due to the higher defence), I'd sug gest a series of 2-Player matches in Arcade Mode, alternating until only Vega/Master Bison is left for the final battle.
You won't get the super dumb special ending, but who cares?
Technically, being at higher difficulty also makes them harder to dizzy, which means you can continue your combos longer.
But the idea is good. I'll try it out, see how it looks.
Time to bump once again.
I restarted the run, and and making some (very) slow progress. Thanks, Saturn, for reminding me to play on the hardest level.
http://dehacked.2y.net/microstorage.php/info/1992829800/SSF2newrun.smv
I've currently beaten T. Hawk and Ryu, with Blanka being the next opponent. After Blanka, I'm planning on jumping in with Fei Long as player 2, beat Guile with him, do a few matches, and, well, no idea after that. It'll most likely be a while to then, though - I'm awfully slow.
EDIT: Oh yeah, forgot to mention: There's several non-combo hits just to set up for bigger combos in the corner. I hope it's not too distracting/boring when not every hit turns into a major combo.
Most likely, this is some basic error and I'm just stupid, but, eh.
So yeah, I tried to compile 1.43 v15.3, but I simply get this error:
$ make
g++ -fno-rtti -INONE -I/home/neophos/snes9x -I/home/neophos/snes9x/unzip -c -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer -fno-exceptions -Wall -W -pedantic -Wno-unused-parameter -pipe -INONE -I/home/neophos/snes9x -I/home/neophos/snes9x/unzip -DMITSHM -DVAR_CYCLES -DCPU_SHUTDOWN -DSPC700_SHUTDOWN -DEXECUTE_SUPERFX_PER_LINE -DUSE_THREADS -DSPC700_C -DNETPLAY_SUPPORT -DUNZIP_SUPPORT -DJMA_SUPPORT -fexceptions -DSDD1_DECOMP -DJOYSTICK_SUPPORT -DNOASM -DNEW_COLOUR_BLENDING -DZLIB -DHAVE_MKSTEMP -DHAVE_STRINGS_H -DHAVE_SYS_IOCTL_H '-DACCEPT_SIZE_T=socklen_t' lua-engine.cpp -o lua-engine.o
lua-engine.cpp:25:17: error: lua.h: No such file or directory
lua-engine.cpp:26:21: error: lauxlib.h: No such file or directory
lua-engine.cpp:27:20: error: lualib.h: No such file or directory
lua-engine.cpp:32: error: expected initializer before ‘*’ token
lua-engine.cpp: In function ‘int S9xLuaSpeed()’:
lua-engine.cpp:97: error: ‘LUA’ was not declared in this scope
lua-engine.cpp: In function ‘void S9xLuaWrite(uint32)’:
lua-engine.cpp:136: error: ‘LUA’ was not declared in this scope
lua-engine.cpp:136: error: ‘lua_settop’ was not declared in this scope
lua-engine.cpp:138: error: ‘LUA_REGISTRYINDEX’ was not declared in this scope
lua-engine.cpp:138: error: ‘lua_getfield’ was not declared in this scope
lua-engine.cpp:139: error: ‘lua_pushinteger’ was not declared in this scope
lua-engine.cpp:140: error: ‘lua_gettable’ was not declared in this scope
lua-engine.cpp:144: error: ‘lua_pcall’ was not declared in this scope
lua-engine.cpp:146: error: ‘lua_tostring’ was not declared in this scope
lua-engine.cpp: At global scope:
lua-engine.cpp:200: error: ‘lua_State’ was not declared in this scope
lua-engine.cpp:200: error: ‘L’ was not declared in this scope
lua-engine.cpp:200: error: expected ‘,’ or ‘;’ before ‘{’ token
lua-engine.cpp:38: warning: ‘frameBoundary’ defined but not used
lua-engine.cpp:45: warning: ‘skipRerecords’ defined but not used
lua-engine.cpp:48: warning: ‘frameAdvanceThread’ defined but not used
lua-engine.cpp:50: warning: ‘guiCallbackTable’ defined but not used
lua-engine.cpp:53: warning: ‘frameAdvanceWaiting’ defined but not used
lua-engine.cpp:56: warning: ‘wasPaused’ defined but not used
lua-engine.cpp:59: warning: ‘transparency’ defined but not used
lua-engine.cpp:62: warning: ‘lua_joypads’ defined but not used
lua-engine.cpp:63: warning: ‘lua_joypads_used’ defined but not used
lua-engine.cpp:72: warning: ‘gui_used’ defined but not used
lua-engine.cpp:73: warning: ‘gui_data’ defined but not used
lua-engine.cpp:83: warning: ‘button_mappings’ defined but not used
lua-engine.cpp:200: warning: ‘snes9x_speedmode’ defined but not used
make: *** [lua-engine.o] Error 1
Super Smash Bros. Melee got a debug-menu that's quite known throughout the community.
More information here: http://ssbm.detstar.com/debug/
It sounds like a potentially interesting site, although I don't think I would have anything to contribute.
So, reading what the others said, this is either a parody of the very concepts I said (in which case it stood out very badly against games who employ them normally), alternatively a satire against it (which, again, can still be mistaken for the actual thing).
See, since 4chan became really popular, the whole "absurdist"/"LOL SO RANDOM XD" shtick has been so overused, there's no real amusement in it anymore. So if this truly IS a parody - Alright, but it just seems like an overzealous attempt at being zany rather than a parody. It's like nonsensical poetry which claims to spoof modernist poetry that doesn't make any sense by... not making any sense. Seen that way, it's in a way a tribute to the very thing it parodies. It becomes the same stylish lack of substance it claims not to be.
Maybe I just don't get it.
FODA wrote:
This game tries to break every game concept but it is in fact just a platformer. "Promising" concept but failed execution.