Games Beaten 2015

[alienjesus]

Not what I expected for my first :B: of the year, but here goes:

1. Star Fox 2 SNES *NEW*


I played through Star Fox 2 on my new RetroN5 system, courtesy of a patch I found which allows you to run it using a StarWing cartridge. It was quite interesting seeing what could have been.

The different arwing stats for different characters was nice, although as there were only 3 variations it seemed redundant adding in the two extra characters they did - there were enough characters anyway. The new map navigation system is potentially interesting, but in practice, it falls a bit flat - encounters often only feature 1 or 2 enemies and are over in under 5 seconds. The same goes for the planets - they should have played like more traditional Star Fox levels rather than the new free-roaming levels where you spend most of your time in mech form. The free roaming environments were better done in Lylat Wars at least.

Speaking of the mech form, it's not bad. It's powerful and mobile - it does however make the game far too easy - theres just no real need to go into ship form anymore unless in a space encounter - dodging and attacking is better in the mech. The game is altogether too easy and too short as it is, even on harder difficulties - there are only 5 short planet stages and a couple of mini boss encounters to play through, and a run is over in 30-45 minutes at most.

I liked seeing StarWolf appear in 16 bit, but other than that, this game was no great loss - it's fun enough, but it feels underdeveloped and rushed compared to the original, and not just because it was cancelled before release. Everything this game did was done again but better in StarFox Command, and that game wasn't that hot either.

I'm glad I have the ability to play this, it's a fun novelty. It's not a lost treasure though really - Nintendo were probably right to move their focus to N64 for the sequel.

[REPO Man]

William the Conqueror, an action game made in Flash. You play a knight constantly walking from left to right, stopping only to lock swords (or whatever the enemy's fighting with) with the hordes of enemies, spanning 50 waves. You also earn gold to upgrade your skills (health, regeneration, how frequently you attack, how much harder you attack when you rapidly click your mouse, how much gold you get, how frequently your two spells recharge, how powerful your meteor attack is, et cetera).

It's not very fun but I just got roped into this time waster.

[MrEco]

http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/01/05/ ... ewer-games

Dave specifically and everyone else, what are your thoughts? I mean it's IGN, so it's already getting taken with a grain of salt, but considering we all have backlogs, I thought this might be worth some discussion and debate.

I agree with some of his points about mediocre video games, but I think there's still relatively few compelling points that he's trying to drive home.

Honestly I'm surprised. That seems like the most well thought out and logical article I've ever read from IGN. That's not saying much, but still, it should be noted.

Personally I completely agree with what the guy is saying. Basically there's no reason to force yourself to play through a game if you're not having fun with it. Of course you can if you want, there's always pros and cons to playing a game you stopped having fun with partway through, but in a general sense it's not necessary.

That's all something that I've had to basically teach myself over the last couple years, and it's still hard to do sometimes. I use to get feelings of what you might call a sunk cost fallacy, where I felt like I had to play a game to completion in order to get my moneys worth from it. It's important to remember though that regardless of how many hours I spend playing a game, if none of those hours are fun then there's no value gained from the time spent on the game. It ends up just being a waste of time.
That said, I don't just instantly drop a game as son as it hits a snag and looses some of it's luster. Many times problems can come up to make a game feel boring and they turn out to only be temporary.

[Blu]

1. Super Smash Brothers - N64 (January 3)
2. Shovel Knight - Wii U (January 6)

Lots of fun, not nearly as aggravating or difficult as a Mega Man game, but absolutely fun and delightful. It had its challenging moments, but I felt there was a lot of last appeal for this game. Excellent soundtrack too, lots of self-deprecating humor.

8.5/10

[nullPointer]

1. BioShock 2 (PC/Steam)

BioShock 2
This is a carry over that I started in December of 2014, but actually finished just yesterday. I'm gonna go ahead and put this one in a spoiler because as it turned out I had a lot to say about this game!

If popular opinion is to be believed, Bioshock 2 is a game that suffers under the shadow of the remarkable first game in the series, which is mostly regarded as being the better of the two journeys into the depths of Rapture (that is, if one can actually classify separate journeys into the depths of madness and depravity as being somehow being “better” than one another). Some of this opinion is warranted, but in other crucial ways this game actually manages to outshine its older sibling.

Let’s talk a bit about story and setting, as I feel that these two elements define the heart of the Bioshock experience. Much like its antagonist, the first game was responsible for creating Rapture, the ugly, decrepit, and rusted out undersea dystopia. In Bioshock 2 well you’ll sure see more … of the same. The trouble with a setting like Rapture really is that it’s a bit self-contained, both literally and figuratively. It’s wonderfully detailed, and there are hundreds of stories to be told (as evidenced by the many audio diaries that reappear in this game), but it’s still a microcosm. So Bioshock 2 returns you to the same old Rapture you've seen before, to visit the same old menagerie of drug addled psychos you've set on fire before. In a lesser setting this might prove to be an issue, but that’s just it; the world of Rapture has enough texture and atmosphere that it can still stand strong even if you do have some sense of déjà vu upon your return. The weight of dread, hopelessness, and despair bears down on you every bit as much as the weight of the ocean around you, which in turn allows you to once again soak in the experience of Rapture.

In terms of story, your reaction may depend on how you feel about canon and its role in a larger story arc. Indeed there are some potential issues here in terms of overall canon. It takes some firm suspension of disbelief to swallow the premise that the Rapture we saw in the first game survived another 10 minutes after our first departure, much less another 8 years. The character of Sofia Lamb is bolted on to the canon in such a way that it begs the question, if Lamb was such a prominent figure in Rapture, why did we not hear of her in the first game? How are there still splicers down here, being that they seem to be a pretty nonfunctional self-destructive lot, and I can’t imagine that they’d be capable of reproduction (nor would I want to … ewww). So yes, there may be some issues with Bioshock 2 in terms of the overall canon of the series, but here’s the clincher, and a statement which may net me some detractors. If you can look past the minor issues above, the story in Bioshock 2 is actually better than the first game. Sorry Ken Levine, but the boys at 2K Marin may have managed to top the amazing story set forth in the original Bioshock. In the first Bioshock, one of the major premises of the game revolves around the question of, “Why am I doing this?” (And I’m hoping at least someone answered, “A man chooses, a slave obeys”). The original Bioshock is brilliant science fiction populated by a colorful rotating sideshow of psychotic freaks. But it missed a bit of the human element. In Bioshock2 you know immediately who you are (in a basic sense), what you must do, and crucially why you must do it. This opens up the opportunity for a more humanist approach to Rapture, being that the resolution of this tension allows for huge opportunities in characterization. And Bioshock 2 seizes upon that opportunity in spades. In the first game I was purely vested in the mystery itself which was great, but in this game I was actually attached to the characters as well. This manages to add some emotional heft to the story which I felt was missing a bit in the first game. (In truth this is probably helped by the fact that I myself am a parent, and the central themes of Bioshock 2 revolve heavily around what it means to be a parent … err … Daddy)

So how’s the gameplay? Well a lot like the first game, the difficulty curve here is a bit frontloaded. As you gain plasmids, tonics, and weapons upgrades the game becomes significantly easier. In some ways this is a bit unfortunate at least insofar as it would have been nice to feel that rush of badassery immediately upon stepping into the brass boots of a Big Daddy. As it is you start off a bit weak and underpowered, slowly growing into your role as a walking fortress. And that’s fine really. It wouldn’t be super-fun or challenging if you started out as the biggest badass in Rapture. Just as in the first game, Bioshock 2 really finds its groove when you start gaining power-ups to assist you in your endeavor, and it’s at this point that the gameplay absolutely shines. It’s still an absolute blast to figure out interesting and advantageous combinations of plasmids, tonics, and weapon upgrades in order to rain death upon the doomed denizens of Rapture.

There was one element of the first game that I did miss in Bioshock 2 which was the open world component. In the original Bioshock you felt the massiveness of Rapture in that you could travel from one end of the city to the other if you were so inclined. In Bioshock 2 your experience is firmly divided into a level-based structure. There are plot devices in place to help make some sense out of this particular element, but it warrants a mention. To say that the game plays on rails is an understatement, being that your conveyance between levels for half the game is in fact a train. It’s a minor thing, but I certainly would have loved to have the ability to return to previous levels for more in-depth exploration. Oddly I also found some issue with repetitive tasks in the game, which I feel is also partly related to its strictly structured levels. The way in which you’re tasked with the repetitive task(s) of rescuing a Little Sister, gathering Adam, dealing with the Little Sister, fighting Big Sister, wash, rinse, repeat … starts to feel a bit grind-y by the end of it. It also impacts the pacing of the story a bit. I think an open world setting might have relieved this issue somewhat in that it would have been nice to set my own agenda for handling the Little/Big sisters rather than being forced to handle everything in a level before moving onto the next without hope for return. Once again this is a small issue in the grand scheme of things, but one that definitely became noticeable to me. Luckily the combat allows for so much creativity and improvisation that this cycle rarely becomes a dreaded chore (despite my comments on grinding).

So there you have it. I must say that after two games of being trapped at the bottom of the ocean with the worst sort of abominations imaginable, I’m looking forward to taking my Bioshock experience to the sky in Bioshock Infinite, drifting through the clouds … with the worst sort of abominations imaginable.

At any rate I found Bioshock 2 to be an excellent game particularly suited for fans of dark science fiction and horror, as well as anyone that enjoys story driven first person shooters.

[Xeogred]

Bioshock 2 is definitely a gem. How is more Rapture bad? Yeah I'll never get why it was so overlooked. The DLC was amazing too.

[MrEco]

I'm curious, do you guys tend to count replays in these threads? Like if you go back and play through a game you've already beaten just for fun would it typically count for the purposes of this thread? Or is this more meant for games you're beating for the first time?

[Cronozilla]

The official consensus is you can count games any way you want. As long as YOU consider it "Beaten". It's whatever goal you've set.

People list games they've replayed very often. If you want to count differently, you are free to do so. But there are no real requirements outside, probably, that you've played it and reached some sort of significant conclusion or goal within the game.

For games played, but not finished, I believe there's the Games Not Beaten thread (or whatever it's called)

[CFFJR]

Yeah, what Crono said.

I count my replays, because there are many games I replay on a regular basis. I just make a note of it if a game is a replay.

However, I only count a game once for the year. This comes into play sometimes as I might beat a game like Sonic 1 4 or 5 times in a year (or like last year, when I played through some simple character hacks and beat it something like 10 times in a couple of days) but I only list it the first time.

[alienjesus]

On the other hand, I only add games I've beaten for the first time to my list. Do whatever works for you.