circuitface wrote:I'll probably be completely alone in this but I find the Genesis/MD version of Alien 3 to be almost perfect.
You have a very clearly defined set of rules in the game and as long as you adhere to them you won't even get hit, much less lose a life. But you have to be on your toes the entire time and never relax, because as soon as you do a xeno will come charging low from the side of the screen to trip you up.
There are only two things that keep the game from being perfect.
1. The Timer. The timer is only forgiving to those who have memorized the level layouts, and in some instances - unforgiving still. This means that every time you reach new heights in the game the timer becomes your greatest foe. Even if you've honed your patience and reflexes to efficiently deal with the aliens AND conserve your ammo it won't matter in the face of inevitable doom. It's a perfect example of "knowledge is power". You can't beat the game without having already memorized the layouts and prisoner locations. There's an example in the game early on where if you follow the path of least resistance to a T, and never make a mistake or get hung up, you'll still end up with only a few seconds to spare on the clock. It's a shame really.
2. Variety.
And that's it. I love everything else about the game and find it to be a perfect challenge. The music is wonderful and it plays like a refined Shinobi with guns.
It suddenly occurred to me to examine strategy titles:
Sid Meier - Pirates!, Railroad Tycoon, Civilization series. - No one, I think, has been more successful at bringing real-world politics and anthropology to the gaming space. His games are always quite complicated, yes, (in fact I remember after scoring Civ2, poring through its 100+ page manual) but also very elegant and incredibly deep. From what I've read, I don't think anyone has spent so much thought on the proper use of AI.
X-COM - Arguably the pinnacle of turn-based squad tactics, and the more meta strategic decisions. I still haven't beaten it, but it's so incredibly well-done. Only thing left to be desired is decent UI - I wish there were a mod out there somewhere that addresses it.
Starcraft - the FTG of strategy games. I can't play at a competitive level myself (I seem to lack the aptitude for multitasking), but the fact that it's more or less a bonafide sport in S. Korea speaks volumes.
I'd like to say something about D&D and its derivatives (Baldur's Gate, eg) but there's a lot of chaff mixed in with the wheat. In any case, it certainly deserves mention.
Ruldra wrote:Regarding strategy games, Total Annihilation is often considered one of the best titles in the genre. Never got to play it myself though.
I played it back when it came out - I think at the time its main competition was Warcraft 2, Red Alert, and Homeworld (memory is subject to error). In any case, during the golden age of RTSes. Didn't really click with me but critics seemed (and still seem) to love it. As I recall, each game would end with a protracted attack against the main enemy bot, which was extremely durable. As an RTS, it's an interesting counterpoint to Blizzard, but doesn't seem to have as much soul as its competition. Worth checking out on GoG, or what have you, though.
A sequel was made somewhat recently (read: within the past 10 years).
Despatche wrote:There's the Supreme Commander series, though.
Yep, Supreme Commander is the spiritual sequel of TA. When I first saw its awesome trailer I immediately went and bought the game. It's great but I never got the hang of it, even the singleplayer campaign kicked my ass hard. RTS is one genre I truly suck at.
Moniker wrote:It suddenly occurred to me to examine strategy titles:
X-COM - Arguably the pinnacle of turn-based squad tactics, and the more meta strategic decisions. I still haven't beaten it, but it's so incredibly well-done. Only thing left to be desired is decent UI - I wish there were a mod out there somewhere that addresses it.
I have to agree with this one. This is easily one of the best turn-based strategy games out there, but the user interface is almost more trouble than it's worth to play this these days (of course, this was made back when most mice still only had two buttons, and the scroll wheel was years away.) It should be interesting to see how well they can pull this off with the new one coming out soon.
In a similar vein, I have to say that in terms of SRPGs (of which it could probably be debated for hours whether or not X-COM fits in the category), the Disgaea series is the one that handles the basic mechanics best. Everything in the course of battle in Disgaea has a certain flow to it that most SRPGs lack, and Final Fantasy Tactics is just mind-numbingly slow to try to play when you're used to playing Disgaea (especially with most animations off.) It could be debated which entry in the series is best though (4 has by far the most bells and whistles, and 1 has the best story, but I feel that 2 is the most approachable.)
I'm gonna have to disagree with you there. Disgaea requires a mind-numbing degree of pointless "level-grinding"/farming that ruins the pacing of the game.
If I've gotta pick a turn-based strategy game, it would be Fire Emblem, Advance Wars, or HoMM; one of those three. None of them require farming to advance the game; you can progress basically as fast as your skill level will allow you to.
Ditto. Pang is another one of those games where if you mess up, it's your fault. It's fairly simple in it's design but forces you to stay on your toes if you want to win. It's always amazed me at how the simple addition of the dynamite item and crab friendly completely make the gameplay. Since there's no jumping, having self control and not succumbing to item lust makes all the difference to your success.
It's also pretty amazing how much tension it can make you feel for such a cutesy little puzzler. You'll have one of the smallest bubbles bouncing around in a walled off segment with nothing but one tiny gap for it to eventually make it's way through, giving you the option of A. Using the ladders to get to it, putting yourself in danger or B. Patiently waiting it out while your timer ticks ever closer to doom.
It also goes without saying that I'm a fan of the visuals in the first two games of course. Those backdrops were a real sight back in 1990.
Blackbird wrote:I'm gonna have to disagree with you there. Disgaea requires a mind-numbing degree of pointless "level-grinding"/farming that ruins the pacing of the game.
Disgaea doesn't actually require any of that if you just want to get through the story. You can easily steamroll through most missions with your overpowered story characters. The ridiculous four-figure level grinding only comes into play during the postgame, which you can easily sink hundreds of hours into should you choose to do so.
I've seen some Disgaea fans who say the postgame is their favorite part. Case in point, Ulillillia.
I think Sonic 3&K, SMB3 (not sure if world is better since I never played it), and SSF2 are all good picks. Lets add Psikyo shmups to the list. They are formulaic because it is a good formula, that`s my theory anyway (same thing with Megaman games). I`m not sure which is best though, because I suck at all of them. Also, let`s add Chrono Trigger.
I'd knock out Doom 2. It's good multiplayer, but I thought a lot of the single player levels were kinda random in the let's-paste-cyberdemons-and-spider-walkers-all-over-the-damn-place kind of way. Doom 1 is much better thought-out, has bosses which make sense, no cheapness whatsoever (anything that can really hurt you is decently telegraphed and/or visible to dodge), has shotguns available so you can continue after you die without a saved game... masterpiece. IMO, it's still the high water mark for FPS games, lack of cinematics aside.
cinematics, lol. I agree about the level design. The super shotgun in Doom 2 was nice though. Back in the day I had an IPX network running under DOS and played Doom 2 LAN games, but the map we always used was a modified version of E1M1, with the super shotgun and other stuff added on.
No love for the Langrissers makes me sad
I think Langrissers are among the best turn-based strategy but I don`t think I`d call them paragons of game design. The gameplay is different enough between each game in the series that it seems like Masaya themselves were never quite satisfied with it. There was always some little thing that felt cheap or unbalanced. But I think the great thing about the series compared to others is that there are expendable units. For one, it makes the game less frustrating, but also means there can be other strategies than "don`t lose any units." For instance, I might have some disadvantaged units (like monks vs. horseman) which couldn`t win, but I could make a wall out of them on the side of a mountain and cast protect, just to block the enemy and buy some time.
It is going to be a bit of a rant. Probably would be better in a separate thread of its own, but anyway I will have a go.
The only thing good that's come out of more recent games is precise platforming, N+ being the pioneer (as far as I know of course). Most other recent platform games fall pretty badly, in my opinion, because of trying too hard to please everyone basically.
You would think that after decades have passed there would be better and more interesting enemy behavior. The enemies in most of these recent games almost act as placeholders (with few exceptions on few spots), which is rather pathetic if you ask me. Actually enemy behavior (since there is none) in general seems to be the last thing on the mind of most of these developers. Why should that be the case?
In any case, two things that a good single player game should have in my opinion are:
1- A sense of tension even if you know what to do.
2- Some variations within different playthroughs even if the player is very strong and knows the game inside out.
Obviously I am not saying that these are absolutely necessary, since no one can say methodical IREM games aren't good, otherwise I wouldn't have put a Metal Slug game in there! But that particular part really depends on roughly how good and ingenious the level design is and, I feel, isn't easy to quantify.
But coming back to these two points, first of all how well do shoot'em ups do in this regard? Well I would say that at least (1) they do very well. And for (2), in most of the games, even though the enemy positions are mostly static, the positional dependence of bullet patterns does add at least some element to it. Of course nature of a given scoring system would put some limit on (2) (since you want the players to be able to 'control' their score to a certain extent).
But, as a fringe point, something I noticed in Strikers 2 was that in second loop a lot of the patterns (from bosses) are static (not the sucide bullets). Having some practice against these patterns you note that at least some of these patterns could be varying within different playthroughs while still keeping the game possible, although even more difficult. If that was the case, the game would improve on (2) above.
Now (1) is simply related to the aspect of timing windows in a game so to speak. (2) is dependent on two further factors, which aren't necessarily mutually exclusive (although they do interact):
a) Randomness
Simply having a few random parameters control the enemy, which would make it more unpredictable.
b) Sensitivity
It doesn't have anything directly to do with randomness. An enemy with zero random parameters could still have behavior that is very difficult to keep in control for the player. That is sensitivity. Dependence on very small positional or timing windows is one example.
Now coming all the way back to my original point, I have no doubt that platform games have made absolutely zero progress with regards to enemy behavior. What this does effect is directly the point (2) I mentioned above. And since platform games progress at player's speed, this also eliminates (1) to a good extent (leave aside precise platforming) as far as enemy 'threat' is concerned. Of course can be specific exceptions to it if the enemies are placed within a given set piece in a clever way. But, by and far, in most recent platformers (at least the half dozen I have played) that also happens occasionally as an exception rather than a norm.
Before someone criticizes my whole argument based on the point that these two points are not the only ones that make a good game, I will agree with that. Some one could say games like Castelvania (older ones), Metal Slug, Silhouette Mirage do seem to fall in this category, just like R-Type can be considered a good game. But most of these games were shorter, had charming worlds, varied within levels, lacked tedium, and introduced new ideas at their time (also, the amount of information processing in Silhouette Mirage at any given time is higher) and are decade and a half old.
Finishing this long post, the reason why I would say Tiger Road is good is that despite having a very powerful player attack (which makes the timing window forgiving) it keeps an interesting rhythm and variety of enemies and ingenuity in level design -- for a game that is quarter of century old it does both of the points (1) and (2) admirably well. Of course there maybe other arcade platform games that also do this very well. Until there are newer games that completely outclass it, better to keep older ones as an example. My point is that is the purpose of all that ridiculous extra processing power is to make enemies that run around in pre-determined paths and require no timing to beat?
Last edited by wiNteR on Fri Jun 08, 2012 2:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
I, Robot (Atari, Arcade, circa '83) Didn't get nearly enough recognition upon release, or sell very well evidently. Designed by Dave Theurer (Missile Command, Tempest). My local arcade actually had one while I was growing up and I played it constantly. One of the first arcade games to have filled/shaded polygonal 3D graphics (perhaps the very first?). Camera viewpoint was adjustable up and down (and if I remember affected scoring based on how low it was..?). Really cool mix of spatial awareness (jumping), timing (don't jump when the big eye is open), shooting (especially the space levels in between the mazes), simple puzzle solving (colouring-in the mazes in the optimal way), reflexes and quick thinking (points awarded for fastest times). Very distinctive game. I think it was just way ahead of its time, though. But I loved it.
Oh and FWIW I also think that Doom 2's level designs are nicer than Doom...
I can't do this thread. I have a long list of games I wanna say but without explanation it's meaningless and with it will take me forever. I'll think about it.
Chrono Trigger - The location-based combat adds unique chances to encounters with otherwise similar enemies. Every location I'm going to, I know why I'm going there and I'm favorable about it. The story is told so well it keeps my eye on the prize. The ending is great and the final battle is amazing.
Rez - Hard progressive techno mixed in very well with recognizing enemy patterns. The scoring system takes the game deeper as an ongoing puzzle of how to spot sections of eight in any scenario.
Blur (multiplayer) - At face value, it looks like Mario Kart where he who has the most time, succeeds. When you invest that time, you come to find that all the carrots, all the experience points, and all the perks you earn for just being there do not get you the advantages needed to win. You come to find that players basically started with almost all the tools needed to succeed in the beginning. When you get to that epiphany, you learn that to win in Blur, you must drive with Gran Turismo finesse while holding off competition and your own greed with defensive firepower. When the cheaters left, Blur became one of the greatest multiplayer games around.
Metal Combat: Falcon's Revenge - Old-ass super scope boss rush where every mech boss has a sequence for disassembly and skill shots to tear every screen-filling weapon apart piece by piece. A cunning game of shooting defense and counterattack.
Pro Pinball (Big Race USA, Timeshock, Fantastic Journey, The Web) - The best virtual pinball tables I know about. Mechanics almost as deep as a 90s table.
Nier (Hard Mode only, no sidequests) - No sense of dread and climbing a figurative mountain is better experienced than Nier Hard Mode. What was once a forgettable hack'n'slash in lesser modes becomes a careful and constant analysis of your surroundings in this version. The challenge thrusts life in the world by instilling fear as you transverse it. It makes you watch and care about the story scenes. It makes you fist pump the air as you fell an asshole twenty minute boss fight. You must observe the nuances of the battle mechanics and you must manage every asset of your item inventory to survive. Nier, to me, is the last true test of a single player challenge. It is the last "can you.." action RPG.
Re: Nier, I've been digging the soundtrack to that game for some time but I was always put off by the seemingly dull gameplay. Is hard mode selectable from the start?
Classic Doom is the best FPS. I don't see much point in pitting the individual titles - Doom, Doom II, Master Levels, Final Doom, Doom 64 - against each other. They have the same core gameplay, just with different levels, and with each having some that are awesome and some that are crap.
null1024 wrote:the combined S3&K is amazing. 3 characters with separate paths [not so much for Sonic, because Tails goes on Sonic's route, even though Tails gets some sections Sonic can't reach], brilliant graphics and sound [although, the S3 version of say, the miniboss theme and other music they changed for S3&K is better], etc.
One of the only things I don't like about combining the games is that Sonic and Tails don't get to fight the Sonic 3 final boss anymore.
RegalSin wrote:You can't even drive across the country Naked anymore
This list needs more computer games. No love for M.U.L.E. or Impossible Mission? Those are pretty near perfect games in my opinion.
I'm also going to mention Ghost Squad as a game which is pretty much the result of a few decades of gun game refinements.
EDIT: BTW also, with all this talk of Sonic, I feel like Sonic CD is the direction the series should've gone in. It's Sonic, but has a good amount of exploration and depth. As you get closer and closer to Sonic Adventure, the game is more flash and less substance IMO (more "hold right" or "hold up", less interactivity)
louisg wrote:This list needs more computer games. No love for M.U.L.E. or Impossible Mission? Those are pretty near perfect games in my opinion.
I'm also going to mention Ghost Squad as a game which is pretty much the result of a few decades of gun game refinements.
EDIT: BTW also, with all this talk of Sonic, I feel like Sonic CD is the direction the series should've gone in. It's Sonic, but has a good amount of exploration and depth. As you get closer and closer to Sonic Adventure, the game is more flash and less substance IMO (more "hold right" or "hold up", less interactivity)
Sonic CD's levels are more tight and intricate, and thus not as big or as expansive as Sonic 3&Ks. Sure, that fits with the whole "find and destroy the machine" thing in each stage, but that leaves the levels seeming really short if you go the route of just doing the Special Stages to get the good future [which is tons harder though].
CD is definitely the slicker game, and it has a really unique style of level design that you don't even see referenced in later Sonic game levels [CD does things a bit more like another branch on how Sonic 1 would, and 3&K [and later 2D Sonics] does things more like it branched off of how Sonic 2 would].
But 3&K has loads of tight platforming as well, and it's levels are massive. It has more interesting setpieces, and the levels are far less choppy than CD's. I still love CD to death [it is so slick, the [not-US] soundtrack and weird graphics are amazing, and the levels are extremely fun], but 3&K is a bit better.
[also, having never played those two other games you listed, I can't comment on them]
Come check out my website, I guess. Random stuff I've worked on over the last two decades.
I dunno about Paragons, but a few games currently stick out.
What do these games have in common?
Zero Point, Zero Point 2, and Rapid Fire
They're all Point Blank clones. Terrible clones. Still: I'm just about to shed a tear thinking about how copying Namco's classic wholesale (right down to the location of the counters in the minigame intro / scoring scenes in most cases, even to the exact wording in Zero Point!) gave some thoroughly incompetent game design firms (Unico and Hanaho Games, in this case) the chance to display something approaching native ingenuity. Even when run through the blender the game design stands tall, and these games are still enjoyable, and more approachable than the usual slow sidescrolling lightgun game (such as East Coast Coin was likely to make). The only thing going against it is the potential for certain "VERY HARD" stage selections to sink your game. Also, the treasure chest minigame is silly. Beyond that, wow - I feel absolutely terrible in every other game that doesn't have an endgame sequence like Point Blank's. Hanaho Games tries with Rapid Fire...but you'll either laugh or feel sick when you see it. I'll definitely be first in line if Namco decides to revisit this successful formula.
Other games that are interesting from the standpoint of design (and hopefully fun enough to play, or at least to screw around with):
The "Puzzle and Action" games from Sega (Ichidant-R possibly being the better of the two classic ones; the ST-V release in the series seems more action focused, but I haven't spent much time with it). Pretty interesting take on game design; seems like a proto-Point Blank in some ways, but far less successful. Unfortunately, most of the minigame types simply aren't too interesting, but I still screw around with it. (I'll take Crack Down instead - now that game seems like a paragon of good game design, terrible use of screen real estate aside).
The Touchmaster X000 games by Midway, surprisingly enough. At a cursory inspection they feel rather silly and forced, especially the early "action" holdovers which don't perform as well as you might wish for - like Hot Hoops or Zap 'Em. One revision of the Touchmaster had a port of Centipede but I imagine it couldn't have been easy to control with greasy fat fingers moving across the screen. Disappeared from later revisions. Pretty much every title here has been designed so that it takes some real skill or concentration to get good scores - although luck factors into far too many of them, especially if you are going for a real standout score. I've logged over 12 hours into Touchmaster 8000 in my latest version of MAME (!!!) and finally managed to finish two suits of Power Cell (essentially Windows solitaire) within the time limit. I won't say the Touchmaster games are life-changing, but it's hard to say that the randomness in most (not all) titles disqualifies them from being considered as a way to construct a touchscreen game device. One of the most successful titles in the Touchmaster lineup is Mirror, Mirror - a simple "spot the difference" game, but with a much-needed dose of time pressure. Overall, the Touchmaster shows that "low concept" games can be done successfully too.
For Shinobi / Rolling Thunder -alikes: Thunder Fox - kinda like Taito's "kill time" game, but with more variety - if anything there's too much variety, not enough time given to really refining certain types of play. It seems better than Data East's Sly Spy and even Secret Project Y, by Konami - a bit too much brawler for my liking. Then there's Surprise Attack - Ruldra's replay looks great, although he could have shown off some more tricks to beat stages quickly, as in stage 1 where I got a 1:40 completion time coming back to the game without remembering anything, as opposed to his fast-looking but actually slow 1:43; you can shave off fragments of seconds by utilizing that oldest of old Konami tricks, "attack while airborne to keep moving at full speed!"
Top-down-ish playfield destructive action: Dead Connection, again by Taito. Haven't seen anything about cut phonelines yet. Brilliant game, too bad my PCB's Japanese. My other pick in this type of genre would be Data East's Nitro Ball / Gun Ball. WELLcome TO stRANGE football FIELD!
Behind the back playfield destructive action: Cabal and Blood Bros., of course.
"Traditional" gun shooters (note all sprite-based; MAME isn't doing so hot yet for 3D gun games shooters, or at least I haven't discovered many beyond say Crypt Killer / Henry Explorers - hey, is Henry a verb? Better than Randy Explorers, I guess...let's mention Edward Randy apropos of nothing, make chance!): I greatly admire both Lethal Enforcers titles; Operation Wolf (maybe not the immediate sequel so much), Under Fire (again by Taito, seems like a rather underrated title, with three-shot burst fire, and the ability to build up reserves of fully automatic fire, and plenty of KILL U! and WHADDYA THINK OF THAT?), and Operation Wolf 3, which seems ugly at first, but I warmed up to the charm of its digitized graphics (not as nice as Under Fire's, but serviceable), interesting weaponry selection and reload scheme (let up off the trigger to reload), and smooth difficulty ramp. In comparison, Under Fire's difficulty ramps up severely at the second boss. Honorable mentions: ALL of the Exidy lightgun games tried out interesting and new things, especially titles like Cheyenne (keep the stupid guy alive), Crossbow (keep the stupid party alive), Who Dunit? (keep the stupid guy alive and shoot him into the right clues), and the legendary Chiller. Another honorable mention goes to Zombie Raid and the various turkey / deerp shootan games from the rednecks at Sammy; the hunting games actually have a pretty good design, let down by unconvincing views, contentious physics, and insufficient resolution. Not convinced: SNK shooters Mechanized Attack and Beast Busters. Beast Busters 2nd Nightmare on NGPC is hella good, but a totally different category of game.
Beyond that...hmm, lots of terrible games and terrible types of games with enough redeeming qualities built in by accident to choose from (most every FPS ever made, and most every 3D console game for that matter). The modern Valve Software games are the closest we're getting to well-designed FPSes, as far as I know (I'm no longer really conversant with the modern evolution of the genre). This is an interesting point, though: Most of the games I have spent the most time with (certainly over the years, before MAME) do not reflect a design process (it's not that they were necessarily not well-thought out, but the mechanics that were intended to be built in didn't get built in, or didn't survive the leap from imagination to paper and then to the screen) very well, but they still manage to be interesting enough - games like The Elder Scrolls 3: Morrowind. Interesting, almost there FPS picks: Serious Sam: The Second Encounter, Battlezone II: Combat Commander (just the style and concept, not so much the execution - at least it's not C&C Renegade), Heretic II (so close to getting a proper weapons progression, but too hung up on locations and storyline, as usual with Raven Software titles - not that I mind the pretty locations; I always liked exporing best), Aliens vs. Predator. There is a copy of Descent on this shelf calling my name...soon I'll give in.
Somebody needs to write up entries for point 'n' click adventure and ZORK-style games. Would be very interested to see the results; my experience with the genre is all Zork and really obscure things like shareware ZORK takeoffs from years past (there are tons of these, and better done ones too), and Gateway II: Homeworld, from the PNC adventure game front.
I would have to argue that the only sandbox style game design I really enjoyed was System Shock 2 - maybe I could count the Thief titles a bit as well. System Shock just needs to be ramped up a bit with more powers and more things to do with them - you can get a taste of the potential craziness in a multiplayer game with free spawning and lots of force field abuse. Battlefield 1942 wasn't bad. There are some sandbox game designs that probably could stand a shout-out, like the British-developed Urban Chaos (an Eidos release). The developers apologized for that one, but really it started out quite promisingly. The MIBs are a red herring...sort of...what's going on in that game?
Plenty of interesting racing games, but at the moment I'm enjoying Toaplan's Rally Bike - no surprise to anybody who read my comments in the Toaplan interview thread.
I always felt that UPL's Ninjakun games were very good - at least the first, which I'm pretty good at. Not so sure about the second which has some of the usual strange UPL emphasis on mechanics (one of the early stages has stymied me - climbing straight up a wall with a repetitive motion), but looks promising.
Also, The Game That Might Not Be Classified a Shmup: Ark Area, which has the misfortune of possibly being compared to the game released the year after it, Omega Fighter. Still, Ark Area is pretty unique. It's actually a moderate update to Nova 2001, with a major difference being that now your ship locks direction automatically, instead of the direction needing to be held with a button, as in Nova 2001.
Vagrant Story.
Possibly Alien Soldier and Psychic Killer Taromaru - will have to play them sometime soon. Speaking of Treasure, Astro Boy and Gunstar Super Heroes aren't bad.
I will never forget resting up my party between random skeleton guard detail skirmishes on the remote island in D&D: Pool of Radiance.
Also, check out Pepsiman in MAME. You will be astonished!
Ruldra wrote:Regarding strategy games, Total Annihilation is often considered one of the best titles in the genre. Never got to play it myself though.
I consider it not only a paragon of the modern RTS but a damn fine example of a program that has been in every single way "future-proofed".
The game supports any resolution that Windows does starting from 640x480 all the way up to whatever you can handle and it's not doing stretching - at least in-game anyway, the menu is forced 640x480. I'd play this over that awful 8-direction-only and 2D Starcraft (I appreciate the game but I think TA would've been more popular if it hadn't been for Blizzard's thorough marketing and release soon after TA). The engine itself is pretty versatile and what modders have been able to pull off with it is simply amazing. I haven't heard much of the same with its competitors.
Speaking of RTS Paragons Herzog Zwei has to be one. It may not be the first RTS ever invented but it's close. AirMech's done a great job taking the base gameplay mechanics and modernising it to avoid the issues associated with the 1989 original.
Pardroid and The Sentinel on C64. If you've played them, I don't need to explain.
Strategy wise, as someone that never quite took to the genre, Supremacy on the Amiga was one game that drew me in thanks to a decent learning curve, and a set of rules that kept things simple while still offering a huge amount of depth once you started improving.
And shit, I can't believe nobody mentioned Rainbow Islands yet.
Marc wrote:Pardroid and The Sentinel on C64. If you've played them, I don't need to explain.
Strategy wise, as someone that never quite took to the genre, Supremacy on the Amiga was one game that drew me in thanks to a decent learning curve, and a set of rules that kept things simple while still offering a huge amount of depth once you started improving.
And shit, I can't believe nobody mentioned Rainbow Islands yet.
All those Taito single-screen and derived games are great. Rainbow Islands, Parasol Stars... they seem a bit underrated these days.
Paradroid and The Sentinel are both excellent, though Sentinel doesn't really have a difficulty curve. I played Paradroid a ton though. If you like Paradroid, I'd recommend giving Citadel a try. It's like Paradroid, but with more explicit level design, and is more of a puzzle/strategy game. I haven't played too far into it (3 worlds I think?), so maybe it's not consistently good the entire way through. But, what I've seen of it so far, it's brilliant.
I also want to give Speed Buggy a mention. I think it's a clever game design which is very replayable, and I can't think of anything really wrong with it. It also had really good home computer ports, which honestly are the best ways to play it these days (given how touchy the analog steering is).
And on the subject of back view driving games: RoadBlasters. This is everything Spy Hunter 2 was supposed to be, and I think it might actually out-class Spy Hunter itself. I've played this for years and never get tired of it.
I played Citadel quite a bit way back when but it's one I've never been back to. Also, Snare on C64, nit just really well designed, but I'm not sure I've ever played another game quite like it, which is a rare thing.
I'm going to chime in and support Nier as well. Just don't do the sidequests because they're boring as fuck. Easily one of the best stories, best soundtracks, and best action-RPGs I've ever had the pleasure of experiencing. Like DJI said, you have to be careful with your surroundings and your inventory, but there's never a moment in a fight where you're telling yourself there was no way you could've blocked/dodged the attack. If you're getting hit, it's because you're being sloppy or rushing, and not because the game is unfair or about trading blows with enemies and then letting an RNG and your stats determine the battle.
Oh, and it's one of the VERY few video games that's been able to provoke a real emotional response (I'm not counting happiness at beating a game or anger at NOT beating a game) from me.
...I think I'm going to play this again in the near future.
<trap15> I only pick high quality games
<trap15> I'm just pulling shit out of my ass tbh
)
