what was good about Space Giraffe?

[Matthew Doucette]

What was good about Space Giraffe? I would love to hear from those who loved or liked it. I want to understand what I miss in that game. I read in another thread on here that the game is misunderstood, and I admit to being at least one gamer who misunderstood it.

[gradualmeltdown]

I think people like it because its basically Super Tempest 2000+. I mean it kind of is its own game but its really something you'd expect to have been made in the late 90's. It does have KLF samples in the music and that does rule. MU MU!

[RadarScope1]

Here's what I think, and it may be more about the concept than the actual gameplay -- though I do think the gameplay is really interesting, especially if you like very old-school design (tube shooters, early arcade shooters).

While the tube shooter concept is pretty basic and pretty old, SG is one of the only games I've played that really toys with your sense of perception on a minute, fine-tuned level. You really have to play and play and play the game for a period of time to start to see and hear things you did not see and hear the first time you picked it up. Your eyes and ears have to adjust. The audio part is especially key. In pretty much every other game of this type, sounds occur AFTER you do something. In SG, small sounds are cues that you'll have to watch for something coming up -- even if you can't see it right away in all the visual mumbo jumbo that's going on.

A lot of people think the game is broken because of the visual effects. But it's supposed to be that way. Playing long enough to be able to see and hear "though" the effects is the point, not a mistake or an oversight on Minter's part.

The scoring system, the fast controls and gameplay and sense of humor are all cool, too, but it's the sensory perception stuff that makes SG unique. That said, it's not for everyone I guess.

[Matthew Doucette]

Took me a while to reply to this thread I started, but I think RadarScope1 explains my "problem" with this game best. I somehow view it's features as flaws. In a sense, it's almost like judging a game out of its genre (like a rating a shmup based on its appeal to puzzle fans or something of that nature).

It also reminds us that learning curve matters, especially in games where you assume there is no curve (like a shooter) which causes such a quick, and perhaps wrong, judgment call.

I honestly coudln't believe this game made it to XBLA, when I first ran into it. So I knew I missed something, I just wasn't sure what.

[RadarScope1]

Features ... flaws ... it's all a matter of taste, and the only opinion that matters is your own.

There's a HELL of a learning curve with SG. Are you trying to dig into it, or did you decide it's not for you?

Do you mean you can't believe it made XBLA because it seems so bad? I can see that, though I personally like the game. Here's a tip: go the options menu and turn the music down to zero. The background effects are tied to the music volume, so you'll be able to reduce the noise, which makes the game easier. The visualizer won't completely go away, but it will be significantly toned down. And you're not missing anything with the music, either -- there's nothing remarkable about it.

[Matthew Doucette]

I had already decided it was not for me. (Edited that to be past tense.) But depending on what I heard in this thread, I might try it again. After all... it *is* on XBLA and I don't see any Xona Games sitting there yet!

When I checked out SG, thinking that it's an shmup that Microsoft let get to XBLA (after hearing about Cave shooters being rejected), I was expecting something amazing. But I thought it *sucked*. Of course I'm not that judgmental, or I wouldn't be here asking about what I missed. We all make snap first judgments and they can't all be right. Now, "suck" is not very descriptive, so if you want me to define exactly why it sucked, that's tough, but let me try: It seemed no fun because it was very limited (restrictive) and had cheesy graphic effects that reminded me of a winamp plugin. Nothing special stood out about it. But, again, that's why I'm here asking about it. I judged E4 (<--- links are hard to see in these forums) too quickly, too. So I try to learn from such mistakes.

Cool, tip! I will have to check it out again, now.

[RadarScope1]

Wimamp graphics ... haha ... yeah, totally.

Also, play the tutorial, and the FAQs are worth it because its so damn confusing.

http://www.gamefaqs.com/console/xbox360 ... 38955.html

[Niode]

I judged E4 (<--- links are hard to see in these forums).

Try changing the forum's theme in your User Control Panel. There's a few themes to try. The best one (IMO) is AcidTech.

[Matthew Doucette]

I judged E4 (<--- links are hard to see in these forums).

Try changing the forum's theme in your User Control Panel. There's a few themes to try. The best one (IMO) is AcidTech.

I don't want to change the theme if this is the default one, because I'll forget my links aren't easy to see. This way I'll be constantly reminded. But, thanks for the suggestion! I actually love this default theme. Something about it. It just made me feel so welcome when I came here. I didn't feel like I was going to be attacked for being an upcoming developer talking about his game and blamed for spamming and whatnot. I love it except the hidden links, but maybe that's even a good thing somehow, who knows!