Random Gaming Thoughts

[Valkyrie-Favor]

That baby-faced knight who grins as he slices up another man bothers me a little.

[RCBH928]

This is the video from NintendoLife about Mario Galaxy HD treatment using Dolphin:


Any one recognises the tune that kicks in at 1:30 ?

I swear I heard it before in some tv show or film

[Erik_Twice]

I've played in not one, not two but THREE different Netrunner tournaments this weekend. I'm mentally exhausted but I won one and placed well in the other two so I can't really complain

[flex wood]

Since there's been a lot of talk about dolphin recently I downloaded it it and started playing some Eternal Darkness. The game looks great with all the bells and whistles. I'm curious though what do I need to be able to play Wii games controller wise? I skipped the Wii and would love to start being able to just pick up games on the cheap without having to add a console into the mix.

I think ssf might be next so I can play some working design games.

[Ack]

An easy game can never be a great game.

One who thinks this has a very narrow minded view of what a game can be.

An easy game can never be a great game.

Because...?

"what's wrong with mindless entertainment?". My response? "Nothing, unless you have a mind."

Ok, let me break it down for you then.

An easy game can never be a great game.

Here, you state that easy games cannot be great, thus setting your criteria for greatness in video games as the opposite, meaning hard. But there are several problems with this:

1. You based your argument on a subjective variable.

The difficulty of any particular game is not a concrete factor. It is subjective, based upon the player. I am rubbish at SHMUPs and struggle with even some that are considered "easy" by the SHMUPs community. But at the same time, I have aced games like the Mega Man series or the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. series, which have even managed to find their ways into "Top 10 Hardest Games" lists. Difficulty is not something that is universal, for a variety of reasons. Some people may struggle with coordination, vision, or critical thinking skills to beat a game that other people find simple to master.

2. Difficulty does not mean quality.

Difficulty in games can be caused by a variety of factors. Yes, some games are difficult because they offer complex systems which require time to learn or offer limited resources with which to attain your goal. But others are difficult because they are poorly designed, offer subpar control, or suffer from technical issues. Contra is considered a difficult but excellent game. Brutal: Paws of Fury is also considered difficult, but it is not an excellent game.

3. You imply with your response that hard games cannot be mindless. This is incorrect.

Video games do not necessarily require or need to require critical thinking skills. Some excellent video games are based around coordination and response time, memorization, or motion tracking. The light gun and rail shooter genres are based entirely on these kinds of factors, while the FPS is partly based on them. Other excellent games give the player freedom to do what he or she wants, such as Minecraft, where the player can build a structure as complex as they choose or even decide simply to wander and experience the world. It is the ability to provide both immersion and depth without forcing it upon players that it has become such an appealing game for individuals around the world and spanning a large range of ages.

You should also consider that in some games, if you are thinking, you are not yet good enough at the game. Fighting games are a prime example where true dedication and overcoming the game means the player has been able to let go of their mind and is now able to react to all situations presented. It is this state of 'no mind' where the game has become engrained to the point it is natural and spontaneous. I see this, I react like this, but I do not think about the reaction. I simply do it.

4. Difficulty is only a single aspect of a game.

By basing your initial argument on difficulty being the most crucial decider of quality, you completely knock out any sort of aesthetic or immersive quality. In this argument gameplay trumps presentation. While I do understand the argument behind it, I worry that you are too rigidly applying rules to a format that can be as lawless and unruly as the designers wish. Video games can be used to foster teamwork, educate, rehabilitate, entertain, and explore. They can be as simplistic and easy as Tetris, as humorous and light-hearted as The Secret of Monkey Island, as dark and difficult as Demon Souls, as educational as Reader Rabbit, or as relentless as Metal Slug X. To say such a generalization is to limit thousands of creative entities and possibilities and to shut yourself off from an incredible array of works as varied as the human mind.

My suggestion for setting criteria on game quality? Examine each game you play and find the aspects you enjoy, even if it is a quality you find superficial such as sound work or animation. Focus on this and try to explain what it is about these things you enjoy and want future game players and designers to notice. You'll get infinitely more enjoyment out of your hobby. Because right now, you have what appears to be such a narrow view. Stop, you're missing out! Lose yourself for a few hours in Endless Ocean, wander through the world of Zork, and lay waste to the plucky heroes in Dungeon Keeper. Run screaming down the streets of Silent Hill, or crash an airplane into a squad in Battlefield 4. Knock someone into the wall in F-Zero or fire wildly at Aerosmith in Revolution X. Just try to keep an open mind about what a game can be and what about them can be of quality.

[Luke]

You do understand I was being facetious, do you?

Just commented on BoneSnapDeez's post about Aladdin for the snes. That game is Easy with a capital E, and I love it. Play it at least once every year I do.

That, and some games lose their difficulty with time. Ninja Gaiden is basically mindless entertainment for me. I know the paths of every enemy and beating the game is just repeating the same motions I've been doing since the game was released.

[prfsnl_gmr]

In other news, I think I'm going to go for a full collection of T&E Soft golf games, as well as a complete set of EA PGA Tour (pre-Tiger Woods) golf games.

Whew! I hope you have deep pockets! Acquiring all of those games could cost you in the tens of dollars!

Although I am still hunting for Disney Golf (PS2), I have actually acquired most of these. They are inexpensive and fun to collect. You might also want to consider Super Swing Golf (WII), Super Swing Golf Season 2 (WII), and We Love Golf (WII). The Super Swing Golf games were published by Tecmo, and you can play as classic Tecmo characters (i.e., Ryu Hayabusa, Mighty Bomb Jack, etc.) in the second game. We Love Golf! was developed by Camelot Software Planning - the team behind the Golden Sun series and the sublime Mario Golf (GBC) - and since it was published by Capcom, you can play as some classic Capcom characters in that game (i.e., Chun Li, Morrigan, Ryu, etc.). Finally, all of the games are basically free at Gamestop; so, they will not set you back too much.

[Luke]

No golf collection is complete without Ribbit King.

[fastbilly1]

No golf collection is complete without Ribbit King.

But that is a Frolf game.

[Luke]

No golf collection is complete without Ribbit King.

But that is a Frolf game.

Never deny those the game of Frolf -The Golf Gods

There were a bunch of satirical golf games out in the heyday of the PS2 and GameCube, but there was one that I remember actually enjoying. I believe the characters were crude stereotypes, but the golf itself was a lot of fun and fairly challenging. May have been on the Crube.