"A bad first installment should get a pass, because it's the first installment."

Luciana · August 28, 2016, 07:09:11 PM

Quote from: BaconShelf on August 28, 2016, 07:03:15 PM

Oh I stopped playing Oblivion because of the god awful character faces. Waaaay too distracting.

Morrowind was fine because of when it came out, but Oblivion just looked like shit.

Mods really help it, but back in 2006 I didn't think it was bad. Now, omg.

Luciana · August 28, 2016, 07:10:21 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on August 28, 2016, 07:02:33 PM

Yeah, the Gen 1 pandering is real. And it's not letting up, either--all of the Alola forms they've revealed so far have been for first generation Pokémon only, which a lot of people are upset about.

I can tolerate it, personally, but the nostalgia-baiting is hard to deny.

Ugh

It's just, I like the pokemon, but I feel it just holds the game back from fully embracing the new gen and its pokemon. Black and White did a good job of this, really (I think). And the further away from Gen V we get, the more and more I am realizing it truly was the best in the series. Even IF the Pokemon weren't my favorite (far from it), it was bold enough to go all in instead of peppering Gen 1/2 in hopes of making it better.

Jim · August 28, 2016, 07:22:37 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Luciana · August 28, 2016, 07:42:53 PM

I will say Fallout 1/2 aged, but when playing something modern like Pillars of Eternity, I can say Fallout 1/2 holds up fine in comparison to it. Lord knows the writing did.

Elai · August 28, 2016, 08:32:08 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on August 28, 2016, 06:56:51 PM

I can also completely understand shutting off animations in Gen IV. Those games made battles so fucking slow for no reason.

i must have formed the habit of turning them off in gen. 4, then.

Luciana · August 28, 2016, 09:52:23 PM

I'm glad we're all agreeing gen 4 is HORRIBLE, BECAUSE IT IS!!!

Slow, worst faction, etc.

Only two things worth mentioning are Cynthia, and her theme

also off note, Gardevoir seems to be the one pokemon every loves across gens.

Verbatim · August 28, 2016, 09:57:29 PM

Quote from: Luciana on August 28, 2016, 09:52:23 PM

also off note, Gardevoir seems to be the one pokemon every loves across gens.

they only like her for the plot

Spartan · August 28, 2016, 10:10:11 PM

tfw like gardevoir because i used it in my first ever team (alongside sceptile, swellow, azumarill, aggron, manectric and banette) and it's been ruined by people on the internet

But I like Platinum a ton, the region is comfy, the music is pretty alright, Battle Frontier and it really enhanced the speed/pokemon selection from Diamond and Pearl (like I like how they had a fire Elite 4 member in a region with only two available fire types in D/P). Diamond and Pearl was a chore to play/

Luciana · August 28, 2016, 10:12:14 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on August 28, 2016, 09:57:29 PM

Quote from: Luciana on August 28, 2016, 09:52:23 PM
also off note, Gardevoir seems to be the one pokemon every loves across gens.
they only like her for the plot

I like her design

she's cute too

Luciana · August 28, 2016, 10:13:20 PM

Oh I forgot to mention another reason to mention Gen 4

Platinum Dawn's winter outfit

Elai · August 28, 2016, 10:14:46 PM

Quote from: Luciana on August 28, 2016, 09:52:23 PM

I'm glad we're all agreeing gen 4 is HORRIBLE, BECAUSE IT IS!!!

Slow, worst faction, etc.

Only two things worth mentioning are Cynthia, and her theme

also off note, Gardevoir seems to be the one pokemon every loves across gens.

gen 4 is better than gen 3 and 6

i would say gen 5 too but it's been so long since i played i dont feel qualified

Spartan · August 28, 2016, 10:19:34 PM

Gen 4 introduced the physical special split which is the best thing they've ever added to a pokemon game

I'd personally rate 4 behind 5 and 3, so it's my third fave

Elai · August 28, 2016, 10:31:59 PM

gen 3 is the most overrated generation

Spartan · August 28, 2016, 10:41:02 PM

It introduced a lot of cool Pokemon, added abilities and natures, gave the pc a not awful interface, actually had interesting version differences, overhauled berries and IV's, actually had menu sprites, etc.

I'd say it's done enough and had enough of an impact to get the praise it gets (and it has plenty of detractors anyway)

🍁 Aria 🔮 · August 28, 2016, 10:42:11 PM

Quote from: Prehistoric on August 28, 2016, 10:31:59 PM

gen 3 is the most overrated generation

Eh

It's a good average to compare other Pokémon games to. It's not amazing, but it didn't do anything awful either. Pokémon designs were good (see: Aggron), but it definitely laid out the foundation for future design philosophy with Pokémon like Skitty and Latias/Latios. The environments were varied enough that it didn't feel like a lot of the same, but too much water 8.8/10. It added mechanics to make the game easier via EXP share and other things, but the way they put it in made it only slightly easier. Still set the games up to be the pushover they are today.

Again, all in all, a solid 6/10. Nothing spectacular, but it wasn't a bad follow-up to Gen II.

Verbatim · August 28, 2016, 11:38:30 PM

i'd probably give Gen 3 a 7/10 at least, but i definitely agree that it's a good average to weigh the other games with

it's also the perfect nuzlocking generation

Zonda · August 29, 2016, 12:01:21 AM

If you don't at least accept that a game was unpolished/clunky even in its day then you're probably a shill tbh.

BaconShelf · August 29, 2016, 03:07:42 AM

Quote from: Luciana on August 28, 2016, 07:09:11 PM

Quote from: BaconShelf on August 28, 2016, 07:03:15 PM
Oh I stopped playing Oblivion because of the god awful character faces. Waaaay too distracting.

Morrowind was fine because of when it came out, but Oblivion just looked like shit.
Mods really help it, but back in 2006 I didn't think it was bad. Now, omg.

Even for 2006 it looked pretty shit.

Though I do intend to play through it with some QOL mods when I get my PC. I reeaally want to play through it.

Hahahaha very funny Zonda · August 29, 2016, 03:20:33 AM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Super Irish · August 29, 2016, 11:32:35 AM

Present-ism.

It's not fair to compare something like the original Space Invaders to the modern equivalent;

...simply because the time difference in between and the developments in technology and ideas that have been realised in that time.

That said,a game can be shit regardless of it being the first in a series or the last for it's time, just as prequels can be better or worse than the original. E.g:

Deus Ex - Considered amazing then and now, although a bit dated since it's release in 2000
Deus Ex: Invisible War - Ok on it's own, though had serious issues as a result of having consoles as the lead platform. Shit as a Deus Ex game.
Deus Ex: Human Revolution - Considered very good, although had some criticisms which were later addressed in the Director's Cut.
Deus Ex: Mankind Divided - Recently released, so far has received "favourable reviews", with mixed reactions by customers.

TLDR; A game can be shit if it's the first of the series. Doesn't mean it can apply to the whole of the franchise, and if the time difference between them is large, certain concessions such as graphics (NOT story, depth of characters, game-breaking bugs, etc) have to be given.

Zonda · August 29, 2016, 11:02:28 PM

Quote from: ねこ on August 29, 2016, 03:20:33 AM

Nigga fuck you

fight me breh Cheese Land 200cc, Inside Drifters only

🍁 Aria 🔮 · August 29, 2016, 11:28:48 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on August 28, 2016, 11:38:30 PM

i'd probably give Gen 3 a 7/10 at least, but i definitely agree that it's a good average to weigh the other games with

it's also the perfect nuzlocking generation

I had to give it a -1 to counteract my personal bias. I've put over 400 hours into the Gen III games (RSE and FRLG); the runner up is closer to 70 hours. I love Gen III, but that's because it's the Gen that I've spent the most time playing. Can't let that affect the score.

Flee · August 30, 2016, 08:13:17 AM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

True Turquoise · August 30, 2016, 08:22:05 AM

I mostly just appreciate them existing

Big Boss · August 30, 2016, 08:50:26 AM

Quote from: Verbatim on August 28, 2016, 11:38:30 PM

i'd probably give Gen 3 a 7/10 at least, but i definitely agree that it's a good average to weigh the other games with

it's also the perfect nuzlocking generation

I was about to give my thoughts on Gen 3 but then thought I'd just save it for the review

Verbatim · August 30, 2016, 08:56:15 AM

Quote from: Super Prime on August 29, 2016, 11:28:48 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on August 28, 2016, 11:38:30 PM
i'd probably give Gen 3 a 7/10 at least, but i definitely agree that it's a good average to weigh the other games with

it's also the perfect nuzlocking generation
I had to give it a -1 to counteract my personal bias. I've put over 400 hours into the Gen III games (RSE and FRLG); the runner up is closer to 70 hours. I love Gen III, but that's because it's the Gen that I've spent the most time playing. Can't let that affect the score.

Yeah, that's fair enough. There were a couple of questionable design choices in Gen III, which mostly have to do with Game Freak's habit of taking two steps forward, one step back. They took away the day/night mechanic--which was just stupid--and they introduced a lot of interesting mechanics that, while aren't necessarily bad (especially for the casual player), caused endless frustrations for the more hardcore competitive player, like natures, the EV/IV system, and the proliferation of event Pokémon--which are a pain in the ass no matter what kind of player you are.

Despite that, though, I dunno about you, but I'd still probably put Gen III in my top 3, because the sheer number of improvements and additions vastly outweigh the handful of missteps, and I think we can agree there.

You gave me an idea for another thread, actually, because this tends to come up a lot: "Eh, Pokémon Ranger is a good game, but it's not a good Pokémon game," or "Fallout 4 is okay, but it's a terrible Fallout game."

Is it better to rate games as standalone pieces, or as a part of a franchise? Obviously, acknowledging both sides is probably the way to go, but if you had to pick one side, which would be better? Personally, I pretty much always prefer to rate games as standalone pieces. I can acknowledge its quality in relation to other games in the series, but... is that always important?

Big Boss · August 30, 2016, 09:01:38 AM

Quote from: Verbatim on August 30, 2016, 08:56:15 AM

Quote from: Super Prime on August 29, 2016, 11:28:48 PM
Quote from: Verbatim on August 28, 2016, 11:38:30 PM
i'd probably give Gen 3 a 7/10 at least, but i definitely agree that it's a good average to weigh the other games with

it's also the perfect nuzlocking generation
I had to give it a -1 to counteract my personal bias. I've put over 400 hours into the Gen III games (RSE and FRLG); the runner up is closer to 70 hours. I love Gen III, but that's because it's the Gen that I've spent the most time playing. Can't let that affect the score.
Yeah, that's fair enough. There were a couple of questionable design choices in Gen III, which mostly have to do with Game Freak's habit of taking two steps forward, and one step back with new generations. They took away the day/night mechanic--which was just stupid--and they introduced a lot of interesting mechanics that, while aren't necessarily bad (especially for the casual player), caused endless frustrations for the more hardcore competitive player, like natures, the EV/IV system, and the proliferation of event Pokémon--which are a pain in the ass no matter what kind of player you are.

Despite that, though, I dunno about you, but I'd still probably put Gen III in my top 3 generations, because the number of improvements vastly outweigh the missteps.

You gave me an idea for another thread, actually, because this tends to come up a lot: "Eh, Pokémon Ranger is a good game, but it's not a good Pokémon game," or "Fallout 4 is okay, but it's a terrible Fallout game."

Is it better to rate games as standalone pieces, or as a part of a franchise? Obviously, acknowledging both sides is probably the way to go, but if you had to pick one side, which would be better? Personally, I pretty much always prefer to rate games as standalone pieces. I can acknowledge its quality in relation to other games in the series, but... is that always important?

I don't think you can judge or compare spinoffs to the games of the main series if the gameplay is completely different. The whole point of a spinoff is to provide a different take on the series, so if you complain that say... Metal Gear Rising is a terrible MG game because the stealth was shitty and the story was naff then you're just wasting your breath because it's a spinoff and isn't supposed to be like the main series.

On the case of Ranger being a good Pokemon game I must ask, what exactly makes a good Pokemon game?

Verbatim · August 30, 2016, 09:10:42 AM

Quote from: Big Boss on August 30, 2016, 09:01:38 AM

I don't think you can judge or compare spinoffs to the games of the main series if the gameplay is completely different. The whole point of a spinoff is to provide a different take on the series, so if you complain that say... Metal Gear Rising is a terrible MG game because the stealth was shitty and the story was naff then you're just wasting your breath because it's a spinoff and isn't supposed to be like the main series.

On the case of Ranger being a good Pokemon game I must ask, what exactly makes a good Pokemon game?

Well, like I said, I don't really think in these terms too often, so I probably wouldn't have the best answer--but in general, I'd say a good Pokémon game is (basically) one that captures the essence of Pokémon.

The essence of Pokémon being a childlike sense of wonder, adventure, discovery, friendship, and a lighthearted goofball sense of humor--let's call it the "the Poké-feel."

That's a very vague answer, but as of 2016, Pokémon spin-offs have pretty much spanned every genre imaginable--and I'd say if any one of those games--be it Pokémon Red, Snap, Channel, Ranger, or Conquest--if any of those games are devoid of "the Poké-feel," then it's probably not a good Pokémon game.

Pokémon Death Metal Gorefest, featuring music composed by Cannibal Corpse and gameplay that has you running a Pokémon slaughterhouse in a North Korean death camp, probably wouldn't be a good Pokémon game. It might be a fun/interesting game, but not a good Pokémon game. Because the essence of Pokémon... isn't there. You dig?

Big Boss · August 30, 2016, 09:17:27 AM

Quote from: Verbatim on August 30, 2016, 09:10:42 AM

Quote from: Big Boss on August 30, 2016, 09:01:38 AM
I don't think you can judge or compare spinoffs to the games of the main series if the gameplay is completely different. The whole point of a spinoff is to provide a different take on the series, so if you complain that say... Metal Gear Rising is a terrible MG game because the stealth was shitty and the story was naff then you're just wasting your breath because it's a spinoff and isn't supposed to be like the main series.

On the case of Ranger being a good Pokemon game I must ask, what exactly makes a good Pokemon game?
Well, like I said, I don't really think in these terms too often, so I probably wouldn't have the best answer--but in general, I'd say a good Pokémon game is (basically) one that captures the essence of Pokémon.

The essence of Pokémon being a childlike sense of wonder, adventure, discovery, friendship, and a lighthearted goofball sense of humor--let's call it the "the Poké-feel."

That's a very vague answer, but as of 2016, Pokémon spin-offs have pretty much spanned every genre imaginable--and I'd say if any one of those games--be it Pokémon Red, Snap, Channel, Ranger, or Conquest--if any of those games are devoid of "the Poké-feel," then it's probably not a good Pokémon game.

Pokémon Death Metal Gorefest, featuring music composed by Cannibal Corpse and gameplay that has you running a Pokémon slaughterhouse in a North Korean death camp, probably wouldn't be a good Pokémon game. Because the essence of Pokémon... isn't there. You dig?

I've only played Mystery Dungeon and Ranger, and I'd say they capture the feel well. MD, especially.

What if it's a good game in it's own right, but it's totally unlike the feel of the other Pokemon games? I mean, if they actually made a more mature-oriented Pokemon game with darker themes and a hard-hitting story that was actually really good (not like Mystery Dungeon) would it still be a good Pokemon game?

Mattie G Indahouse · October 02, 2016, 05:51:14 AM

Despite being a first installment, there are games which the developers did a bad job at doing, for example Halo CE. Now that I'm older and Halo lost its appeal to me, I'm able to see the faults with the first game which there's a decent amount of.

Backstory:
-For some odd reason Earth is the only planet the UNSC cares about even though they have many other ones just like it. You would think the UNSC would try to keep every planet a secret or at least the ones which have been colonized for the least amount of time. Earth would be the last planet I would care about due to the resources on it being fewer than newer planets which the UNSC is on.

-Even though we play as a Spartan II we have no idea what that is besides the MC being super solider. The book could at least explain the back story behind the creation of the product.

size=18pt]Level Design:[/size]
-Every single level ends up repeating an area more than once, some levels almost end up doing it throughout the whole thing. 343 Guilty Spark, The Library and Assault on The Control Room/Two Betrayals are the worse at doing that. For example AOTCR you start out in the top room of a tower and you have to make your way down it going through rooms which look just like the ones you went through before. Once you get out side you make your way to another tower latter on which you do the same exact thing, but in reverse.

-Three out of the ten levels you end up playing again. I know for Keys and The Maw you end up going through different areas, but you're still basically replaying a previous level. I wouldn't have much of a problem with it if there was more than ten levels, but there isn't. Almost half of the levels we have for the game are previous ones.

-The Library I find to be extremely annoying with little enjoyment at all to it. Besides getting spammed by flood and going through areas which are cloned after each other, the level makes no sense at all. There's no logic at all with the way the building is designed lore wise. Instead of having an elevator which takes you to the top, you have to go on multiple ones even though the index is above you.

Gameplay:
-No matter how fast a vehicle is going if it touches you, you're dead.

-The friendly AI is just shit compared to the enemy AI. I don't care if it would make the game easier. If there is going to be AI fighting with you, then this AI should actually be there for a reason.

-The vehicle controls are just shit. Instead of the right trigger being forward and the left being reverse, we use the left thump stick for every decree of motion.

-The Warthog was probably the worse vehicle there was to control up until the APC in Mass Effect and the Mongoose in Halo 3.

-The pistol makes using any other weapon besides the rocket launcher redundant. The gun can be used as a sniper rifle and it's able to be used in close quarters. It's literally the only gun in the game which you can use from start to finish without needing to swap it out.

-The assault rifle is next to useless due to the damage output.

-The hunters are able to be killed with one shot from the pistol or sniper rifle on their skin, not matter how much health they have. I know the reason behind it was due to the orange being a head shot, but it's retarded that the strongest non-vehicle enemy in the game can be killed that easily.

-The marines are able to use the Ghost which was a horrible decision due to how badly they use it. If you're on foot then you're most likely going to get ran over by them.