BoneSnapDeez wrote:Oh man Blu has no idea what's ahead of him.
I feel like I've now played all the "classic" JRPGs and have to dive into obscurity for my next fix.
About time we hit up Inindo.
Games Beaten 2016
Re: Games Beaten 2016
About time we hit up Inindo.
Re: Games Beaten 2016
Don't do it!
(Actually, I own it, and I remember Game Informer giving it a glowing review for whatever reason back in the day.)
(Actually, I own it, and I remember Game Informer giving it a glowing review for whatever reason back in the day.)
Re: Games Beaten 2016
3/19: Sonic Generations (3DS)
3/22: Sonic Colors (Wii)
4/10: Sonic Adventure DX (GCN)
4/17: Knuckles in Sonic 2 (SG/WiiVC)
6/15: Disgaea: Afternoon of Darkness (PSP/PSTV)
8/4: Metal Slug (Arcade/PS4)
8/5: Metal Slug 2 (Arcade/PS4)
8/5: Metal Slug X (Arcade/PS4)
8/5: Metal Slug 3 (Arcade/PS4)
8/22: Megaman X (SNES/GCN)
8/29: Megaman X2 (SNES/GCN)
9/3: Megaman X3 (SNES/GCN)
9/3: Megaman X4 (PSX/GCN)
9/4: Megaman X5 (PSX/GCN)
9/5: Super Puzzle Fighter II Turbo HD Remix (PSN/PS3)
9/6: Street Fighter V (PS4)
9/10: Super Puzzle Fighter II Turbo (PSX)
9/17: Dragonball Xenoverse (PS4)
10/1: Metal Gear Solid (PSX/PS3)
10/09: Marvel vs Capcom 2 (Dreamcast)
10/11: Metal Gear Solid 2 HD (PS3)
10/18: Metal Gear Solid 3 HD (PS3)
My Metal Gear run through continues! Metal Gear Solid 2 in HD is kind of a yawn. The enhanced resolution does not really add that much to the game. MGS3 in HD, however, is amazing. I have really hard times distinguishing shades of green and having higher resolution + a larger TV made this game so much more playable for me. I think I enjoyed it for more than just the story for the first time ever!
3/22: Sonic Colors (Wii)
4/10: Sonic Adventure DX (GCN)
4/17: Knuckles in Sonic 2 (SG/WiiVC)
6/15: Disgaea: Afternoon of Darkness (PSP/PSTV)
8/4: Metal Slug (Arcade/PS4)
8/5: Metal Slug 2 (Arcade/PS4)
8/5: Metal Slug X (Arcade/PS4)
8/5: Metal Slug 3 (Arcade/PS4)
8/22: Megaman X (SNES/GCN)
8/29: Megaman X2 (SNES/GCN)
9/3: Megaman X3 (SNES/GCN)
9/3: Megaman X4 (PSX/GCN)
9/4: Megaman X5 (PSX/GCN)
9/5: Super Puzzle Fighter II Turbo HD Remix (PSN/PS3)
9/6: Street Fighter V (PS4)
9/10: Super Puzzle Fighter II Turbo (PSX)
9/17: Dragonball Xenoverse (PS4)
10/1: Metal Gear Solid (PSX/PS3)
10/09: Marvel vs Capcom 2 (Dreamcast)
10/11: Metal Gear Solid 2 HD (PS3)
10/18: Metal Gear Solid 3 HD (PS3)
My Metal Gear run through continues! Metal Gear Solid 2 in HD is kind of a yawn. The enhanced resolution does not really add that much to the game. MGS3 in HD, however, is amazing. I have really hard times distinguishing shades of green and having higher resolution + a larger TV made this game so much more playable for me. I think I enjoyed it for more than just the story for the first time ever!
Maybe now Nintendo will acknowledge Metroid has a fanbase?
-
BoneSnapDeez
- Next-Gen
- Posts: 20118
- Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 1:08 pm
- Location: Maine
Re: Games Beaten 2016
Blu wrote:I have Final Fantasy 3 (6) and Secret of Mana queued up next.
NOICE. Only problem is that you're starting at the top. It's all downhill after this.
Sarge wrote:Perhaps the second-best RPG on the SNES in Final Fantasy III/VI.
I'd put this at #1 and Chrono Trigger at #2. Chrono Trigger is mechanically much more sound, but the aesthetics of FFVI push it over the edge for me. It's absurdly gorgeous.
Re: Games Beaten 2016
Sarge wrote:Secret of Mana is pretty much just "wait until you hit 100% before attacking". You can also charge up as you get weapon levels, but it takes a bit too long for the highest levels. Kind of like Cyan's SwordTech stuff, as you'll find out in FFIII.
After watching a SoM speedrun at a GDQ I'm now convinced that charging is amazing, as long as you're willing to abuse a rollover bug.
I'll second the Lufia II recommendation; I think it's one of the best lesser known RPGs on the system. My personal top three are a tie between FF6 and CT, with Earthbound as a close third.
Blizzard Entertainment Software Developer - All comments and views are my own and not representative of the company.
Re: Games Beaten 2016
It should be okay, though. I started at or near the top (Final Fantasy III), and wasn't turned off of other 16-bit JRPGs. 
We'll just make CT and FFIII 1a) and 1b), 'kay?
We'll just make CT and FFIII 1a) and 1b), 'kay?
-
BoneSnapDeez
- Next-Gen
- Posts: 20118
- Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 1:08 pm
- Location: Maine
Re: Games Beaten 2016
Don't skip Brandish and The 7th Saga.
Re: Games Beaten 2016
January:
February:
March:
April:
May:
June:
July:
August:
September:
October:
134) JAWS (NES)
135) Chronicles of Teddy: Harmony of Exidus
136) Double Dragon II: The Revenge (PCE CD)
I've always wanted to finish this one, y'all. I love DDII on NES, but this one... well, it's just not as good.
First, the good: it looks nice. It's got some really cool anime cutscenes, and the sprites are pretty nice, too. A decent amount of variation in areas as well, like the NES version.
Now, the bad:
- It doesn't feel as solid. The NES games have a meaty feel to them that this one doesn't quite have. It's still good, but it feels a little more like Super Double Dragon than the NES games, but I like that game a lot more than this, too.
- The moveset is here, but it's not nearly as effective or satisfying. The hyper knee is easier to pull, though, for what it's worth, but all the super moves' effectiveness has been toned down.
- The soundtrack is... well, it's just not very good. The NES version had a great one, moody, driving, and triumphant in equal measure. This has some pretty cheesy-sounding redbook audio that sounds in a few instances like it might have been some sort of easy-listening junk. Blah.
- There's still some platforming here, but most areas have been shortened and simplified quite a bit. I'm surprised they kept the jumping sequence in the temple stage, but it's much easier to clear them. This might be the one area that is a bit improved, because some of the platforming challenges in the NES version required amazing precision. This one just requires decent skill, but it still feels kinda cheap in comparison.
I should have known to jack up the difficulty for the true ending: it pulls the same thing as DDII on NES, but at least it actually lets you fight the very last boss this time. I'm not going through it again, because it pales in comparison to the NES version. It's merely competent. 5/10.
February:
March:
April:
May:
June:
July:
August:
September:
October:
134) JAWS (NES)
135) Chronicles of Teddy: Harmony of Exidus
136) Double Dragon II: The Revenge (PCE CD)
I've always wanted to finish this one, y'all. I love DDII on NES, but this one... well, it's just not as good.
First, the good: it looks nice. It's got some really cool anime cutscenes, and the sprites are pretty nice, too. A decent amount of variation in areas as well, like the NES version.
Now, the bad:
- It doesn't feel as solid. The NES games have a meaty feel to them that this one doesn't quite have. It's still good, but it feels a little more like Super Double Dragon than the NES games, but I like that game a lot more than this, too.
- The moveset is here, but it's not nearly as effective or satisfying. The hyper knee is easier to pull, though, for what it's worth, but all the super moves' effectiveness has been toned down.
- The soundtrack is... well, it's just not very good. The NES version had a great one, moody, driving, and triumphant in equal measure. This has some pretty cheesy-sounding redbook audio that sounds in a few instances like it might have been some sort of easy-listening junk. Blah.
- There's still some platforming here, but most areas have been shortened and simplified quite a bit. I'm surprised they kept the jumping sequence in the temple stage, but it's much easier to clear them. This might be the one area that is a bit improved, because some of the platforming challenges in the NES version required amazing precision. This one just requires decent skill, but it still feels kinda cheap in comparison.
I should have known to jack up the difficulty for the true ending: it pulls the same thing as DDII on NES, but at least it actually lets you fight the very last boss this time. I'm not going through it again, because it pales in comparison to the NES version. It's merely competent. 5/10.
-
PartridgeSenpai
- Next-Gen
- Posts: 2991
- Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2015 9:27 am
- Location: Northern Japan
Re: Games Beaten 2016
I would say my best two SNES JRPG's are also FFVI followed by Chrono Trigger, but I'd have Lufia II as my next one down. For a SNES JRPG not made by Square, it has a really good translation, and really well written characters. The general plot has its problems, feeling too hamfistedly linear, lack of musical cues ruining touching moments, but I think the game powers through them really well, and is a truly fantastic blend of Dragon Quest-style combat and Zelda-style puzzles. (for the record, even though it isn't a SNES game such as a Super Famicom game, I would put DQ5 as #4 on that list).
I identify everyone via avatar, so if you change your avatar, I genuinely might completely forget who you are. -- Me
-
ElkinFencer10
- Next-Gen
- Posts: 8621
- Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2010 8:34 pm
- Location: Henderson, North Carolina
- Contact:
Re: Games Beaten 2016
Games Beaten in 2016 So Far - 106
January (20 Games Beaten)
February (8 Games Beaten)
March (8 Games Beaten)
April (13 Games Beaten)
May (6 Games Beaten)
June (13 Games Beaten)
July (7 Games Beaten)
August (15 Games Beaten)
September (8 Games Beaten)
October (8 Games Beaten)
106. Battlefield 1 - PlayStation 4 - October 20
This is the first time I've ever been truly excited for a Battlefield game. As a history buff (and teacher), seeing a major big budget video game visit World War I - the most historically significant conflict ever fought and one that never gets the attention that it deserves - was EXTREMELY exciting for me. I waited eagerly for the release day to arrive when I could crawl through the trenches of Verdun, fight the battle of the Somme, and resist the Ottoman Turks' control of Arabia.
The game didn't quite live up to those expectations, but it came damn close. First I'll address the campaign - what I looked forward to the most - and then the multiplayer - what the rest of the world looked forward to the most. I have always enjoyed games that told a good story over anything else, and with how (relatively) obscure the first world war is in most people's minds, there was great potential for storytelling in this game that could be both entertaining and informative. Unfortunately, that potential went largely untapped. The campaign takes place over six sections (including a tutorial/installation time-killer), each section containing something like three or five chapters. These each tell the story of a different part of the war - the trenches on the western front, the early days of aerial combat, amphibious landings and beachhead invasions, the exploits of the legendary Lawrence of Arabia, etc. The problem is not with the content of the campaign - each mission was extremely fun and told a different part of this multi-faceted and deeply complex military conflict. The problem with the campaign lies in its length; it's extremely short. It'll take maybe 4 hours, I'd estimate, to get through it. World War I changed the world and the way global politics was played forever. There was SO MUCH more EA could have done with that setting. I was thrilled with what was there; it's how much could have been that left me feeling disappointing and wanting for more.
The multiplayer is exactly what you'd expect from Battlefield - large scale, strategic, and insanely addictive. I'm absolute rubbish at it, but damn, is it fun. In most ways, it really is Battlefield 1942 in 1917. They didn't try to be Call of Duty like Battlefield 3 and 4 did. Back are the huge maps with multiple control points, each of which require (or at least recommend) a different tactic to attack or defend. Picking the right tools (class) for the job is at LEAST as important as an individual player's skill for most of these fights, restoring to Battlefield what always gave it an edge over other shooters IMO - that hint of strategy in a genre full of camping and run-and-gunning. I haven't played around a whole lot with Battlefield 1's multiplayer since I was focused on the campaign, but I intend to change that this weekend, and what I have played was IMMENSELY enjoyable.
Graphically, the game is gorgeous. The lighting effects accentuate the water and mud in a way that is almost too realistic, if that makes sense, but that also drives home the wet, miserable conditions of the French trenches during the war and adds a dull, dreary feel without overly desaturating all of the game's colors. The sound design, as one would expect from Battlefield, is superb. Each gun has its own sound and feel, and each vehicle has a personality. It really brings to life the now-century old machines of war in a way that few games can. If you let yourself get sucked into, Battlefield 1 can immerse you in a way few other big name shooters these days can. I may be a bit biased with how excited I am to have a big budget shooter set in World War I, but I can't praise this game highly enough.
Because of the disappointing length of the campaign and the aspects of the war that were left untouched that I feel like could have added another layer of depth, I can't say that this game is near flawless. It is, however, an EXCELLENT game, and as far as "dude-bro" first person shooters go, this is the best one I've played in years. I absolutely recommend this one to anyone with a PlayStation 4, Xbox One, or gaming PC. This is not a Battlefield title that you want to miss.
January (20 Games Beaten)
February (8 Games Beaten)
March (8 Games Beaten)
April (13 Games Beaten)
May (6 Games Beaten)
June (13 Games Beaten)
July (7 Games Beaten)
August (15 Games Beaten)
September (8 Games Beaten)
October (8 Games Beaten)
106. Battlefield 1 - PlayStation 4 - October 20
This is the first time I've ever been truly excited for a Battlefield game. As a history buff (and teacher), seeing a major big budget video game visit World War I - the most historically significant conflict ever fought and one that never gets the attention that it deserves - was EXTREMELY exciting for me. I waited eagerly for the release day to arrive when I could crawl through the trenches of Verdun, fight the battle of the Somme, and resist the Ottoman Turks' control of Arabia.
The game didn't quite live up to those expectations, but it came damn close. First I'll address the campaign - what I looked forward to the most - and then the multiplayer - what the rest of the world looked forward to the most. I have always enjoyed games that told a good story over anything else, and with how (relatively) obscure the first world war is in most people's minds, there was great potential for storytelling in this game that could be both entertaining and informative. Unfortunately, that potential went largely untapped. The campaign takes place over six sections (including a tutorial/installation time-killer), each section containing something like three or five chapters. These each tell the story of a different part of the war - the trenches on the western front, the early days of aerial combat, amphibious landings and beachhead invasions, the exploits of the legendary Lawrence of Arabia, etc. The problem is not with the content of the campaign - each mission was extremely fun and told a different part of this multi-faceted and deeply complex military conflict. The problem with the campaign lies in its length; it's extremely short. It'll take maybe 4 hours, I'd estimate, to get through it. World War I changed the world and the way global politics was played forever. There was SO MUCH more EA could have done with that setting. I was thrilled with what was there; it's how much could have been that left me feeling disappointing and wanting for more.
The multiplayer is exactly what you'd expect from Battlefield - large scale, strategic, and insanely addictive. I'm absolute rubbish at it, but damn, is it fun. In most ways, it really is Battlefield 1942 in 1917. They didn't try to be Call of Duty like Battlefield 3 and 4 did. Back are the huge maps with multiple control points, each of which require (or at least recommend) a different tactic to attack or defend. Picking the right tools (class) for the job is at LEAST as important as an individual player's skill for most of these fights, restoring to Battlefield what always gave it an edge over other shooters IMO - that hint of strategy in a genre full of camping and run-and-gunning. I haven't played around a whole lot with Battlefield 1's multiplayer since I was focused on the campaign, but I intend to change that this weekend, and what I have played was IMMENSELY enjoyable.
Graphically, the game is gorgeous. The lighting effects accentuate the water and mud in a way that is almost too realistic, if that makes sense, but that also drives home the wet, miserable conditions of the French trenches during the war and adds a dull, dreary feel without overly desaturating all of the game's colors. The sound design, as one would expect from Battlefield, is superb. Each gun has its own sound and feel, and each vehicle has a personality. It really brings to life the now-century old machines of war in a way that few games can. If you let yourself get sucked into, Battlefield 1 can immerse you in a way few other big name shooters these days can. I may be a bit biased with how excited I am to have a big budget shooter set in World War I, but I can't praise this game highly enough.
Because of the disappointing length of the campaign and the aspects of the war that were left untouched that I feel like could have added another layer of depth, I can't say that this game is near flawless. It is, however, an EXCELLENT game, and as far as "dude-bro" first person shooters go, this is the best one I've played in years. I absolutely recommend this one to anyone with a PlayStation 4, Xbox One, or gaming PC. This is not a Battlefield title that you want to miss.
Exhuminator wrote:Ecchi lords must unite for great justice.