Ninja Gaiden [NES] + R2RKMF: Scrolling Action Monogatari

[__SKYe]

Stuck on Stage 3 in a game with four stages, would you believe it?

The stages are pretty long, though. And it gets quite tough there, so it's impressive nonetheless.

I think you might have to input the command a tad late for it to combo. Kind of like Kyo's Jump + B >> combo in the King of Fighters games, I guess.

Ha, it's not the actual Jump+Down+Attack input that is off, but rather the follow up.
Approaching an enemy head-on is a very bad idea (in any beat-em-up, really), so by using jump+Down+Attack, you can stun the enemy, and land right in front of him, and you just need to walk forward to grab him.
This walk forward part is what seems a little off. It seems as if your character doesn't consistently grab him, even when they should.
But given the somewhat dodgy hit detection on bosses, perhaps this is related to it. Again, it's not game breaking, but the details are what make a game shine after all.

Hmm, so the health-draining move is best?

You can hit rolling Heavy Shades out of their roll in Chibiusa mode. I think Minako's Jumping Down + Attack might be able to do it as well, but I've never been able to pull it off. In any case, this 1-credit clear I found on YouTube basically does what you describe, so I'll try that.

Not counting Chibiusa mode (she's Easy mode alright ), I think it is possible to hit them out of the roll, but not consistently.
And yes, both jump attacks hit them out of it, the problem is that they do little damage, and when there's several of them on screen, you'll invariably end up getting hit.
Couple that with the non-existent invulnerability, and you'll probably lose quite a chunk of life.
That's why I think it's better to just to the health draining attack. I believe, in the long run, you end up not losing so much HP, but that's just me. It is decently powerful after all, so the health lost is quite worth it.

That definitely bothered me. It's especially bad at the beginning of Stage 3.

I've occasionally experienced what you describe with Saphir, but given how easy it is to set up a throw loop with him, I don't think it's an issue there. In fact, I'd say the wall on the right side makes Saphir the easiest of the four bosses.

That's a good point. I never really used the throw loop, but in his case it might be worth it.
In general, the lack of invulnerability after a knockdown is pretty bad.

On a side note, the raft part of stage 2 is a charm to play, by throwing every enemy to the water. One of the highlights of the game, for me, and quite reminiscent of Bare Knuckle's Stage 7 (the elevator).

i'm wondering if they just put the controller too close to their mic or something, because i've seen some otherwise very quiet people make some serious noise with their controllers.

Ah, in those cases, they probably have the mic with too much gain?

EDIT: Fixed typos.

[mamboFoxtrot]

All this Alien Soldier talk made me put a credit into it for the first time in several years, and hey, I finally figured out how to beat that fucking Street Shark reject! It was... pretty anti-climatic, honestly. Died to the guy after that, though I probably could've gotten farther if I didn't keep getting the A ad C buttons mixed up.

But, to be honest here, if you don't care about getting 10 points from the Russian judge for your grace and speed in killing the bosses, the first batch ain't exactly the most interesting bunch. There's a few things you can do with the Counter-Force here and there, but it really is a lot of zip-to-win. When I first played the game years back, the world of emulators and games more hardcore than Wind Waker were new to me, and even then, back when I could barely kill the crab fucker, I honestly could see no damn point in Mr. Teenage Mutant Samurai Turtle. The dude's a complete waste of space as far as I'm concerned.

I think if I were to pick the game back up again, assuming I got to a point where I stopped mixing up my buttons, I would probably just make a save-state after Xi-Tiger and start new attempts from there.

Also, turns out I've been playing the 50HZ PAL rom this whole time!

The other thing I should've said is Obscura, your method's inefficiency wastes ammo, which in this game is always at a premium (there's no refills between there and Xi-Tiger). So again, even if you didn't know it, your playstyle was incurring heavy penalties. Trust me I can notice these things. Image

Swiftly, efficiently demolishing stages and bosses with the game's full mechanical suite (both shot types, Phoenix force, Counter force, even empty-tank "Zero force," down to basic manual dodging, plus the teleport) isn't just for speedrunners - it frees up the resources you need to keep your momentum going and stay in that feedback loop.

I'm guessing this is more of a later-game issue? Burning through ammo on Flying Neo has never really screwed me on Xi-Tiger before.


Anyways, back to shoryukening everything in SFC Shabootyman

[Blinge]

what kinda CONTRAVERSY??? :O

Contra III Vibrator Wars: Return of the Revenge

I just remembered what first PEEKED my interest in AS.
https://youtu.be/feff_dfRykY?t=7m6s - this little bit of *ew!!* game tourism

[Squire Grooktook]

I deleted a post I made here earlier because I don't want to risk opening up another can of worms, but I'll just say that it's not a cop out: It's genuinely what I believe and I've had numerous arguments with Skykid here over just what kind of intrinsic value entertainment is capable of possessing. I'll leave it at that.

Yeah, I know you're sincere and didn't mean to imply that you aren't. What I mean is that the "everything is subjective" argument is too simple and incomplete to answer the question of which games are good, and what makes them good, and that it is a dead end argument that gives no room to proceed further.

Yes, that's why - in the post I deleted - I clarified that many things are objective and analyzable (playstyle, character balance, difficulty, learning curve, depth, content, etc. etc.), but other things ("beauty", "fun") are more based on the individual than they are anything universal. IE you cannot "logically" prove that speedkilling is a more fun scoring system than chaining or medalling. I can explain why I prefer speedkilling, and why I find chaining to be a generally odious system, but that is a superiority/inferiority that exists only in my head.

My posts in these topics are generally based around digging into the objective elements, and then giving my subjective impression of the way they come together. This is not a dead end: analyzing the clockwork that makes the game tick, and then getting to know each-other better by discussing our own impressions and feelings on those elements leads to very interesting insights.

[kitten]

my copy of MIGHTY MORPHIN POWER RANGERS for the snes got here, today! for those who missed it, it's a single plane, sidescrolling beat 'em up by natsume, just like the ninja warriors again. having also ordered a copy of the ninja warriors again, i bought this to kind of get myself hyped up (i probably won't be getting TNWA til the end of this week) and also to compare the two of them. while i wouldn't at all call this a great game, it's at least decent and possibly scraping the bottom of the "actually pretty good" barrel. it's fast-paced, punchy, but lacking in challenge or difficulty curve. there's some very basic crowd control going on, but almost any trouble you run into is heavily mitigated by your tremendous health bar.

the game is probably at its most interesting when it's combining its (surprisingly varied) hazards and traps with its basic enemies and making you pay attention to both of them - spacing yourself as to not get surrounded while simultaneously not misstepping into a falling object, laser, or tumbling barrel. there's only one basic goon to thrash on, and despite there being a huge amount of variations, they're all pretty samey to fight. bosses can be a bit of good fun, but once you've got their pattern down, they're rather simplistic. if you have even a mild level of action or beat 'em up competency, you'll probably find your breezing through this one all the way to end, even through the final bosses suddenly turning the game into a bad fighter.

took me 3 attempts to no miss this one, and the only placed i died in any of the runs was the second form of the final boss. since he blocks your attacks almost randomly, it can feel almost like a total crapshoot as to whether his health bar or yours will be the one to deplete first. pacing is quite good with the exception of some portions of stage 3, where there's a very tedious rising-and-falling water hazard. production value is pretty decent, too - there's a few lumpy sprites, but it mostly looks pretty good and has some occasionally fun stuff like thrashing a couple of cars apart.

[Squire Grooktook]

Oh hell what the fuck

this topic moves too fast. Was the argument...over? I can never tell.

I'm gonna clip my post again just in hopes we can finally get back on topic argh.

[__SKYe]

Oh hell what the fuck

this topic moves too fast. Was the argument...over? I can never tell.

Not quite over, from what I gather. Probably just resting for the night.

[Obscura]

Oh hell what the fuck

this topic moves too fast. Was the argument...over? I can never tell.

I'm gonna clip my post again just in hopes we can finally get back on topic argh.

It's never over. There will always be people who think Alien Soldier is good. And I will always be there to correct them. Not the hero they want, but the hero they need.

[Vanguard]

Yes, that's why - in the post I deleted - I clarified that many things are objective and analyzable (playstyle, character balance, difficulty, learning curve, depth, content, etc. etc.), but other things ("beauty", "fun") are more based on the individual than they are anything universal. IE you cannot "logically" prove that speedkilling is a more fun scoring system than chaining or medalling. I can explain why I prefer speedkilling, and why I find chaining to be a generally odious system, but that is a superiority/inferiority that exists only in my head.

My posts in these topics are generally based around digging into the objective elements, and then giving my subjective impression of the way they come together. This is not a dead end: analyzing the clockwork that makes the game tick, and then getting to know each-other better by discussing our own impressions and feelings on those elements leads to very interesting insights.

I see. Well that's a lot more nuanced and reasonable than "everything is subjective." Sorry for misrepresenting you.

I do think that we can still say that chaining (or whatever) is at least good and bad in certain ways, and one could definitely find out what makes any particular chaining game a good or bad chaining game, setting aside the issue of whether chaining itself is good.

Back on the original topic, Alien Soldier is a good survival game and a great "performance" game - that is, a game one plays not with the goal of merely defeating their enemies, but of dominating the opposition as quickly, thoroughly, and stylishly as possible. Personally, I'm mostly interested in survival play, and while I like the game, I can see why more performance-oriented players like you and BIL-sama would appreciate it much more deeply.

[__SKYe]

Back on the original topic, Alien Soldier is a good survival game and a great "performance" game - that is, a game one plays not with the goal of merely defeating their enemies, but of dominating the opposition as quickly, thoroughly, and stylishly as possible. Personally, I'm mostly interested in survival play, and while I like the game, I can see why more performance-oriented players like you and BIL-sama would appreciate it much more deeply.

I know of Alien Soldier, but never played properly, but personally, if it is as you say (both a good survival and performance game), then I think it is fantastic.
Players interested only in the clear can have a great time with it, while players who are already good at the game, also have something to look forward to.
A win-win situation, if you ask me.

[Squire Grooktook]

is at least good and bad in certain ways,

Philosophically speaking, good and bad still don't apply in the realm of entertainment (if they are assumed to exist at all). Alien Soldier will never be cursed or blessed by providence. It simply is what it is.

All that can really be said is that some playstyles (the objective element, which we can break apart and analyze) have more mass appeal to certain niches and audiences than others. Some are so wonky that they appeal to *almost* nobody. But there's no magic or secret sauce (as far as I believe) in either: just the dynamic between the individual and the work of creative expression.

But that way lies philosophy and Kierkegaard and Sartre and madness. Let's not go that way.


At any rate, Alien Soldier is a game that has achieved mass appeal (relatively speaking, within the realm of hardcore 2d action) with casual and hardcore players alike for decades. It's mechanics and design choices all work together to achieve a very interesting kind of playstyle that is beloved by most of us. Some people will never understand, but oh well. Their loss.

[FinalBaton]

Some people will never understand, but oh well. Their loss.

amen

[kitten]

grooktook, i'm not sure exactly what you're saying, there. "good" and "bad" are still meaningful terms used to describe something relative to your perception of its quality. nothing is universal and everything in regard to taste is ultimately subjective, but i don't think these are things that need to be clarified when someone says "alien soldier rules." this feels like it's going into a weird, ruling is a falsehood, alien soldier's kingdom is but illusory, we are all partaking in the shared delusion that it so much as it exists type consideration.

i kind of doubt we're even in disagreement, here, but i'm just confused at WTH is even being said. i mean, you seem to be going a bit into "nothing is anything, people will feel how they feel" territory. in which case - why ever have a discussion about anything anyone disagrees on? there are still (perceived, of course, i feel this is implicit but i'll add it in, anyway) standards that alien soldier can be compared to and meaningful discussion to be had in whether it achieves, exceeds, or fails to meet them that i believe everyone in the thread shares enough of to create meaningful conversation. i think everyone on planet earth right now is in agreement that obscura is not doing those things very well (or sometimes at all), though! i'm not taking his side or *visible shudder* playing devil's advocate.

your last paragraph, especially, seems real condescending - as if anyone who came into the thread and refused to budge from the interpretation that it's a bad game that misses its mark is failing to see something. beckoning to the notion of mass appeal is frequently a weak territory, too, especially on a forum that has a bit of a consensus on an issue. replace "alien soldier" with anything popular that you have passionate distaste for and i'm sure you'll eventually find something you'd be willing to refute, video game or otherwise. i feel that BIL is doing a good job of holding his own and refuting obscura, point-by-point, but this is getting a little "hivemind disagrees with the unwashed one, let him flail about in his filth and ignorance."

- - - - - -

holy hell, check out this absolutely rocking bitch slap that you can do in the second natsume power rangers game. show those chumps who's boss! man, this is the one i played more as a kid, too. if it were cheaper i'd jump on it, right now! i have to say, switching from gigantic health bar to a few distinct bars of health was something i was already mentally considering would help fix the first game, seems like natsume might have been on top of things with improvements in this one.

[Vanguard]

Philosophically speaking, good and bad still don't apply in the realm of entertainment (if they are assumed to exist at all). Alien Soldier will never be cursed or blessed by providence. It simply is what it is.

The words good and bad are meaningless in a vacuum, whether we're talking about entertainment or anything else. When something is said to be good or bad, the real meaning is always good at this, bad at this, or else it has no meaning at all.

It would be nonsense to say the chaining in DoDonPachi or Ikaruga is bad in an absolute sense, but it is objectively correct to say their chaining systems are bad at rewarding player freedom and creativity. It is objectively correct to say that those chaining systerms are good at rewarding player precision and memory.

How much value any given individual places value on freedom or precision is up to them and not relevant to the argument. If you think Holy Diver's controls are a good thing because they make the game more challenging and force you to control your character in a unique way, that's strange but not outright wrong. That also doesn't change the fact that Holy Diver's controls are objectively bad (at being reliable and intuitive when compared to eg. Ninja Gaiden).

People can also form their own criteria for what it means for a game (or anything else) to be good and bad, and in that case, a game could be objectively good according to Vanguard's or Squire Grooktook's criteria, and this is a separate thing from either of us subjectively perceiving a game as good or bad. Being objectively good or bad according to our criteria does not make a game objectively good or bad in an absolute sense (because, again, to say something is good in an absolute sense is meaningless). There are some aspects of games that are so near-universally agreed upon to be good, such as a high level of depth, or clearly-presented visual information, that they're often treated as absolutely good traits, but violating the rules of this consensus criteria doesn't make a game absolutely good or bad either, and this isn't because the consensus criteria is wrong or subjective, but because nothing is simply good or bad in an absolute sense.

TL;DR:

You can objectively and correctly say that a game is good, but only if you are saying it is good at something. To say something is good, not in any particular way, but in an absolute sense, is nonsense.

[Sir Ilpalazzo]

there's only one dynamite batman! :O

i'm referring to what is known as "batman: return of the joker" on the nes. i'm curious what other game you thought i could be referring to: the movie game? the gb game? the gb game is curiously referred to as "return of the joker" in both territories, and has nothing to do with the nes game.

i really love dynamite batman a lot and consider it to be sunsoft's finest batman game. there are a few rough portions (particularly on your first playthrough), but it is a damn satisfying game to no miss and absolutely gorgeous.

Alright! In that case maybe I should give it another shot someday. I didn't like what I played when I first tried it - but if you think it's better than the first NES game I imagine there's something there.

[kitten]

It is objectively correct to say that those chaining systerms are good at rewarding player precision and memory.

it ain't, though. by literal definition. even if there were perfect consensus among all human beings as that being the consideration, it would still be a subjective standard.

e.g.: the person fastest at running is still not objectively good at running. they're objectively the fastest runner. you could even say they're the best* and have that be objective, because it would deal with facts, but being "good" is inherently, always subjective because it deals with perception.

*with the clarification that "best" is "fastest"

(you could argue that all things, ever, are subjective if we assume that reality is a perception, but let's not go there!)

Alright! In that case maybe I should give it another shot someday. I didn't like what I played when I first tried it - but if you think it's better than the first NES game I imagine there's something there.

this is a game that i'm strongly considering doing a recording of once i get my capture set-up that a friend is putting together, for me. i might make it annotated to show how the game is neat!

here's a protip if you're going to try it that i can belt out real, quick, though: only C or N are good weapons. N is great if you're using autofire, C you want to autofire off for and repeatedly fire its charge shot (get really fucking used to that charge interval for optimal play). C with charge outdoes N with autofire in most situations, but you've got to be really apt with it for that to be the case - i suggest using N with autofire while learning.

[Squire Grooktook]

I'm sorry if my post came off as pretentious. I'll try to clarify a bit:

"good" and "bad" are still meaningful terms used to describe something relative to your perception of its quality.

Yes, that's actually what I was saying. Note that I said "in a philosophical sense" before going off on that tangent.

but i don't think these are things that need to be clarified when someone says "alien soldier rules."

It's more a matter of Obscura's tone, and a continued history with him.

He continuously declares games, games that are "good" for all intents and purposes, that he personally dislikes to be "shit" (and in the case of more modern releases, states un-ironically that the developer should go out of business as punishment), declares that he can logically prove them, spouts a bunch of nonsense that's either provably wrong or completely subjective as "proof" that they suck, drags us all in circles for ten pages, and then worldessly retreats (without acknowledging anyones points) for several months before returning to remind us all of the exact same points he failed to prove or even evidence the first time.

I mean holy fuck, we've been over the fucking zero teleport thing 30 fucking times! And he's never acknowledged or responded to the holes we pointed out in his argument about it.

He has done this with many, many games, across multiple threads. And on more than one forum, I might add. He is pretty much a text book troll except he is being honest.

Proving his arguments wrong like BIL is doing is only really useful for outside readers, and I'm personally bored of doing the same (last time I actually uploaded a multitude of screenshots of a game just to thoroughly disect and refute his claims about its level design). No matter how much you dig his arguments apart, he will stick to the sinking ship because he just doesn't get this concept of a game "clicking" with somebody, and firmly believes that if he doesn't like it, there must be something wrong with it and everyone who likes it is wrong.

It might be pedantic as fuck to ramble about the nature of good and bad relative to entertainment, but honestly, at this point, I don't give a fuck anymore. Let's get pedantic motherfuckers

TL;DR:

You can objectively and correctly say that a game is good, but only if you are saying it is good at something.

And I agree

It's all about the experience. Do you want freedom? Creativity? A strict dance? What kind of dance?

Different games supply different kinds of experiences. Nothing can be all things to all people. That's the heart of the matter.

[Vanguard]

it ain't, though. by literal definition. even if there were perfect consensus among all human beings as that being the consideration, it would still be a subjective standard.

e.g.: the person fastest at running is still not objectively good at running. they're objectively the fastest runner. you could even say they're the best and have that be objective, because it would deal with facts, but being "good" is inherently, always subjective because it deals with perception.

Not a subjective standard, a relative standard. The fastest human is objectively fast relative to other human beings. This is a factually correct statement about the runner himself, regardless of the perception of any observer (ie, it is completely objective, not at all subjective).

And while it's true that DoDonPachi chaining might allow the audience more freedom of choice than a book or a movie would, it is very silly and pointless to even make that comparison.

[FinalBaton]

and firmly believes that if he doesn't like it, there must be something wrong with it and everyone who likes it is wrong.

really well said there.

woah, didn't know obscura was a repeat offender at this thing. Looks like I'll be ignoring him in this thread then, lol. Must indeed be annoying to have these discussions again and again and again. I'll try to not make this happen to me

[Squire Grooktook]

The sad thing is, like BIL, I actually agree with him on a few points. The "meat-grinder" methodical intensity of Super Contra AC is a great insight. But if he doesn't like a game (for whatever weird, bizarre reason he has this week, like not liking the default control scheme that you can change before starting)? Forget it. He'll drag you all on for 10 pages and then leave before ever saying "okay, maybe it's not complete shit..."

Don't feed the trolls kids.

[kitten]

Not a subjective standard, a relative standard. The fastest human is objectively fast relative to other human beings. This is a factually correct statement about the runner himself, regardless of the perception of any observer (ie, it is completely objective, not at all subjective).

they're objectively fast, not objectively good at running is what i said. this goes into what a person considers "good" to be. for a moment, consider even a single person to consider no runner "good" at running until they can break the sound barrier. to them, that is what "good" is, and it's a standard not met. you can think this person is as stupid or ridiculous for believing this as you want, but no matter how hard you try to contest it, you can't have authority over their standard.

i'm still going to call them good at running, and i'm going to do it without saying in my opinion because i think it's a fair standard to consider someone who is the fastest to be "good." i'm going to consider anyone who tells me to clarify what i mean by "good" to be obnoxious and with ill intent. but that still doesn't make it objective!

now, say someone says that this person is not the fastest when they are verifiably the fastest person alive (consider for this example for it to have been measured definitively). there's no contesting that. it's objective (again, unless we consider reality to be perception, which, again, let's not go into that). it is fact. "good" and "bad" are never fact.

And while it's true that DoDonPachi chaining might allow the audience more freedom of choice than a book or a movie would, it is very silly and pointless to even make that comparison.

sure. i don't disagree with that. i just disagree with how you're using "objective" - nothing is objectively good or bad, ever, because those words implicitly suggest perception and opinion. i'm not trying to be a pain, here, that's just how the words work. just because everyone shares the standard/perception does not turn it objective

Proving his arguments wrong like BIL is doing is only really useful for outside readers, and I'm personally bored of doing the same (last time I actually uploaded a multitude of screenshots of a game just to thoroughly disect and refute his claims about its level design). No matter how much you dig his arguments apart, he will stick to the sinking ship because he just doesn't get this concept of a game "clicking" with somebody, and firmly believes that if he doesn't like it, there must be something wrong with it.

i already pitched a fit that obscura was ruining the thread with shitposting and don't even find what bil is doing as useful in any way other than comedy, at this point but i think he's still doing a good job of beating the dead horse. imo we should all acknowledge the horse is dead and just ignore it, though!

[Squire Grooktook]

i already pitched a fit that obscura was ruining the thread with shitposting and don't even find what bil is doing as useful in any way other than comedy, at this point but i think he's still doing a good job of beating the dead horse. imo we should all acknowledge the horse is dead and just ignore it, though!

Yea, sorry. I'm usually regarded as very patient and rarely directly confront or criticize people, but there's a bit of a history between the three of us, and after the fourth ten page circular argument, I needed to get some stuff off my chest, I suppose.

Honestly, I should be the one to take a breather from this thread. I'm probably not helping things. In fact I fear I really overdid it in the last several posts. Honestly, should have just deleted that good/bad one before I left.

[kitten]

Yea, sorry. I'm usually regarded as very patient and rarely directly confront or criticize people, but there's a bit of a history between the three of us, and after the fourth ten page circular argument, I needed to get some stuff off my chest, I suppose.

Honestly, I should be the one to take a breather from this thread. I'm probably not helping things.

you're pretty much fine imo i just think we should all ignore anything obscura has to say about alien soldier :O was trying to push that a few pages ago.

[Vanguard]

they're objectively fast, not objectively good at running is what i said. this goes into what a person considers "good" to be. for a moment, consider even a single person to consider no runner "good" at running until they can break the sound barrier. to them, that is what "good" is, and it's a standard not met. you can think this person is as stupid or ridiculous for believing this as you want, but no matter how hard you try to contest it, you can't have authority over their standard.

They're objectively good according to our criteria because our criteria compares existing humans against existing humans and so no matter where anyone draws the line on that scale for where good starts, our runner must be in it, as he occupies the maximally good position. We could also devise a criteria wherein certain absolute speed value is the cutoff point for being deemed a good runner (say, 100 meters in 12 seconds or less). Then anyone able to meet that standard would be an objectively good runner according to the standards of Vanguard's Stupid Criteria. In that case the standard for being good is arbitrary, but still objective.

If all you're trying to say here is that, for maximum pedantic accuracy, the words better and worse are preferable to good and bad, then I get it.

[Obscura]

O BOY SQUIRE COMES TO POISON THE WELL AGAIN.

For those on this forum who aren't aware, here's a bit of context on Squire vs. Obscura that you should have -- dude used to consider me an e-friend, until I committed the horrible crime of --GASP-- not liking Eschatos and writing a negative review of it on Steam. After this, he remained friendly to my face in Steam chat, while shit-talking me behind my back and trying to organize people against me. When I found out, I called him out for being a two-faced little bitch, and unfriended him on Steam. He got butthurt, and has followed me around like an ankle-biting miniature poodle ever since.

Anyways, you should probably hear my viewpoints from the source themselves, not a two-faced little bitch:
Yes, I do think some games are better than others, in the same sense that Camile Saint-Saens is better than Meghan Traynor, and thus there's no sense in saying "it's all just opinions, dude". Shocking, I know. Contrary to what our resident two-faced little bitch claimed, games I think are good don't always align to games I enjoy. I greatly enjoyed Recettear; I also think it's shit. I think Dangan Feveron is a pretty great game; I also have no desire to ever play it again in my life. If this seems strange to you, try reading this: http://www.learntocounter.com/the-diffe ... -and-like/

The main reason I dropped Nier: Automata wasn't because the default control layout was bad (that was just a side note). The main reason I dropped it was because of the roughly 20 frame delay between pushing the jump button and 2B actually jumping, and similarly unresponsive directional changes when walking or running. Again, I'd recommend ignoring most of what the two-faced little bitch says about anything I've ever written or done.

I don't think that a developer should go out of business for releasing a single bad game. Everyone fucks up at some point. But, when you have seven years of releasing awful title after awful title, with one mediocre one thrown in there, and your "star director" can't even release a game without it getting cancelled... maybe it's just better for everyone for Platinum to call it a day. Besides, business will create exactly what the market supports. Developers that release shitty games staying in business -> flooding the market with shit games.

And yes, two-faced little bitch, we have gone over the zero teleport thing about 30 times. And there's people just up this page a little bit pointing out that the entire first act is just "zip to win". Seriously, why the fuck would anyone play enough of that shit to learn what's beyond it? It doesn't matter if, shortly after the first act, Alien Soldier turns into literally the best sidescroller ever -- there's no reason for any sane person to play through its first area to get there and find out for themselves.

[kitten]

They're objectively good according to our criteria because our criteria compares existing humans against existing humans and so no matter where anyone draws the line on that scale for where good starts, our runner must be in it, as he occupies the maximally good position. We could also devise a criteria wherein certain absolute speed value is the cutoff point for being deemed a good runner (say, 100 meters in 12 seconds or less). Then anyone able to meet that standard would be an objectively good runner according to the standards of Vanguard's Stupid Criteria. In that case the standard for being good is arbitrary, but still objective.

i'm not trying to be pedantic, but this is where the discussion is going. something is not objective if it requires perception. someone is fastest without an observer. someone is not good without one. what is good at running? going the fastest? reaching the furthest distance? meeting the most consistent pace? say the person only goes the fastest, but someone else goes the furthest, and yet another has the most consistent pace? these are but an extremely small number of questions that dictate what "good" means to a person in this context. you could not even objectively say that someone who is maximally fast is maximally good at being fast, because this again requires requires usage of "good" - something inherently, exclusively requiring observation and thus differing perceptions.

you cannot be factually good or bad. ever. full stop. being objective requires fact. most things cannot be factually measured and are up to perception, including freedom in scoring systems in a shooter. vanguard, i have absolutely nothing against you, but this is just how those words work by all popular definitions. i hate debating semantics, but "objectively good" is not something that exists without altering accepted definition.

[Squire Grooktook]

After this, he remained friendly to my face in Steam chat, while shit-talking me behind my back and trying to organize people against me.

No, everything I posted was on the very thread that you had been posting on for days beforehand. I expected you to see it. In fact, when you talked to me on steam, I thought you already had.

Making a post on that thread telling people of your review "please downvote this, it contains misinformation that might dissuade potential customers" may have been harsh, but it didn't warrant the response you made. By this point I have realized that, and retract the several apologies I made.

has followed me around like an ankle-biting miniature poodle ever since.

You keep visiting all the same threads I do. This is my most frequented thread here. That's not following.

O BOY SQUIRE COMES TO POISON THE WELL AGAIN.

Everybody in this thread, and the rest of the forum, regards you as a joke by your own posts. You did that yourself.


I'm not going to address the rest, since you've already ignored the responses to those points (once again, regurgitated without thought) that have been made in this thread several times over. I explained you exactly how the first act changes and quickens as you master aiming and spacing out the bosses patterns. I linked to your post in the nier thread and the pointless o button and options controls were made, along with the statement that it was for the best that they go out of business. And I've already taken apart your objective quality nonsense. If I were to keep on proving your points wrong, I'd be wasting time. Because you don't listen.

[Obscura]

Making a post on that thread telling people of your review "please downvote this, it contains misinformation that might dissuade potential customers" may have been harsh, but it didn't warrant the response you made. By this point I have realized that, and retract the several apologies I made.

And, pray tell, what was the misinformation? That the score system penalizes making mistakes at the start of a level much higher than mistakes at the end due to how the chain multiplier is applied, thus creating horrendous restart-itis? That it's got slow bullets but an aggression-based score system, which are strange bedfellows at the absolute best of times? That it ran like total shit at release?

Nope, it was just typical Grooktook "OMG, SOMEONE DISLIKES SOMETHING I LIKE, BETTER START A WAR OVER IT! Oh, and do it behind their back, because I'm too much of a little bitch to say it to them."

[Cee]

Everybody in this thread, and the rest of the forum, regards you as a joke by your own posts. You did that yourself.

Says who? Who the fuck are you to start speaking on behalf of everybody? Fyi you're just as bad with your guaranteed wall of text ign tier reviews and cringe game opinion e-book posts which always read like someone alien to subjectivity and the art of being succinct. You're all of bunch of jokers tbh who contribute to my tired scroll finger on a regular basis, gaming communities and manbabies i swear.

[Squire Grooktook]

Making a post on that thread telling people of your review "please downvote this, it contains misinformation that might dissuade potential customers" may have been harsh, but it didn't warrant the response you made. By this point I have realized that, and retract the several apologies I made.

And, pray tell, what was the misinformation? That the score system penalizes making mistakes at the start of a level much higher than mistakes at the end due to how the chain multiplier is applied, thus creating horrendous restart-itis?

Funny you should say that. I actually tested afterwards, and a dropped enemy near the end actually caused a bigger score loss then a dropped one at the beginning.

The reason is because the multiplier maxes out halfway through the stage, it doesn't just keep rising if you're not playing on ultra mode.

Funny how that works...testing beating out an arrogant, supposedly intuitive assumption.

That it's got slow bullets but an aggression-based score system, which are strange bedfellows at the absolute best of times?

Yes, because the game has a shield mechanic that allows you to slice through bullets. Furthermore, slow bullets can be extremely conductive to large sweeping movements (macro dodging) in clusters.

Says who? Who the fuck are you to start speaking on behalf of everybody?

And counting:

Trap, BIL, Baton, Kitten, Blinge, Strider77 and Skykid have all pretty much called him on his crap at one point or another.

If any of you object to being mentioned here, I'm sorry.

Fyi you're just as bad with your guaranteed wall of text

I try to be thorough. It's all I can do.

I mention subjectivity only to irritating people who don't understand it at all. I don't bring it up to people who aren't obnoxious.