Tendo City

And DID I COMPLAIN ABOUT THE CONTROLS? NO!

At least, not past how it's a bit annoying how some menus require turning the mouse left/right and others the keyboard keys. But that's a minor issue.

If you "read" what I said (esp. the first one) then maybe you'd see that there is more to it than that...

Oh, it's definitely a good game. But not perfect.

You're not listening to me (big surprise there!). You cannot appreciate good gameplay when the controls are so poor. Imagine playing Mario 64 with a keyboard and mouse. It would still have the same gameplay, but since the controls are so much different it would be a completely different playing experience. Come back to me once you've played the GC version.

I'd listen to you if you listened to what I said too! You won't, of course, so why should I bother?

I told you why.

And I told you that I don't see how that relates to most of what I said.

THIS HAS SO MUCH TO DO WITH THE CONTROLS!

Quote:As for BG&E... hmm. It's a very good game. Probably not quite the same 'constant fun' thing as Rayman, but it's supposed to be slower and more thoughtful so that isn't so bad. I like it. The game has fun action-adventuring and nice puzzles... sometimes challenging. The most interesting design decision is the death system. EXTREMELY generous. Maybe TOO generous. Oh, I like being respawned before the action I just did in the room I'm in (and with 4 health -- sometimes quite a gift!), but ... it reduces the difficulty level significantly...

AND THIS DOES TOO! YUP!

Quote:Oh, and maybe I just need to get farther or do more stuff, but I wish they gave you more money. There are a lot of things I want to get... like more healing items AND those cool things...

Unless I'm missing something about how to make money quickly (or at all, without re-going-through the same areas over and over...)? That'd be nice...

I told you I wouldn't read that since it's the PC version.

You seem to have a real problem with getting money in adventure games. I found it rather easy in BGE.

Your position would make sense if you could even begin to explain how those statements have anything at all to do with the controls, or (ON the subject of controls) how you KNOW that I hate them even though I have stated that they are fine... why is that so hard for you to accept? I don't get it... I had some complaints, but it wasn't much about that... and I'd know if I disliked the controls! The only 'issue' (ingame) I can think of is how the mouse is sometimes used as just a left/right axis, but that's understandable in the places it is so I can adapt...

But even then. How in the world does the game setup (difficulty, level design, etc) not matter? It's the SAME GAME! The PC version got perfectly good reviews! You just don't want to deal with any questions of this game or something... for instance Gamespot gave all four versions the same score. They will change scores when there's a serious issue (8.3, BTW. I'd score it a bit higher, but that's tolerable.).

Look, it's kind of hard to make any arguements when you won't read my post. This is the part I'd really like you to read.

Quote:As for BG&E... hmm. It's a very good game. Probably not quite the same 'constant fun' thing as Rayman, but it's supposed to be slower and more thoughtful so that isn't so bad. I like it. The game has fun action-adventuring and nice puzzles... sometimes challenging. The most interesting design decision is the death system. EXTREMELY generous. Maybe TOO generous. Oh, I like being respawned before the action I just did in the room I'm in (and with 4 health -- sometimes quite a gift!), but ... it reduces the difficulty level significantly...

Oh, and maybe I just need to get farther or do more stuff, but I wish they gave you more money. There are a lot of things I want to get... like more healing items AND those cool things...

Anyway, it's a very good game, but has some flaws, including simple combat, for instance, and how in the 'stealth' areas it's so simple -- run into next area/into convenient piping duct/etc and you're safe and they give up, and the story... the story's nice, but not quite as expansive and detailed/twisting as a game as this type could have used. Oh well, still fun, but it could have been better. But still, very good game.

Oh, as for money... no, I don't have enough. I still don't have the pearl scanner because I got the other one (animal scanner) and spent a bunch on healing items (the things they sell in the dungeons, not that much out of them)... very little left over and now I need a lot. Great... where is it supposed to come from...

I told you that I wouldn't read the post since you got the PC version.


The combat is simple but fits the game just fine. For someone who loves titles like Gauntlet which are all about simple action, I'm surprised you're complaining.


I never really noticed the whole spawning "problem" since I rarely ever died in the game, but yeah it is overall a bit too easy. And almost all PC games have save-anywhere functions which make it even easier than BG&E's generous respawning points, yet I don't hear you complaining about that.


The stealth parts are just fine, like MGS-lite. That is only one aspect of the game and just like the combat is perfectly suited for BG&E.


I can't believe you're complaining about the story as it's one of the most well-told video game stories to date. It's not a very complex story but the manner in which it is told is far better and more professional than most games(not counting pc adventures).


Finally, the PC version of the game is shit because of the controls. The controls are atrocious for that type of game, and the only reason it got decent reviews from PC mags is because there's nothing else like it on that platform.

Yes, the PC version's controls are terrible. Which is why neither IGN nor Gamespot mentions the controls as bad, of course.

Yes they do, actually.

From ign's head-to-head comparison of the game:

Quote:If the games industry has learned one thing from the Superman comics, it's that bizarro world does exist. The PC is the bizarro console...or is it the other way around? Point is, where first-person shooters play brilliantly on the PC, adventure games have a habit of running into trouble -- when they don't support controllers, for example.


Yes, you heard right. Somehow, for some reason, the PC version does not support controllers. You have to assign everything to the keyboard and mouse. You can get by, but it's entirely awkward to play this kind of game this way. There's certainly no confusing that the PC version is a port of the consoles in this case.

Following, we list all of the primary functions, but bear in mind the buttons do several different things. Still, this should give you an idea of how things control (and how our mouse/keyboard was setup by default).

Load Point GameCube PlayStation 2 Xbox PC
Crouch L L1 L CTRL
Move L. Stick L. Stick L. Stick W-A-S-D
Camera/Zoom R. Stick R. Stick R. Stick Mouse/Up-Down
Photo/Aim Z R1 Y Shift
Run/Accelerate R R2 R Space
Action/Attack A X A L. Click
Dive/Roll/Release B Square X R. Click
Ask/In-Hovercraft Y Trianble B E
Use X Circle Black Q
Inventory Paging D-pad D-pad D-pad 2/3
Menu Screen Start Start Start ESC
Objectives/Maps N/A Select Back TAB



The only red-flagged portion of the table applies to GameCube. Why? Because it's a button short. When you get a new objective, map, or anything of the sort you can quickly navigate in a one-touch manner on PS2, Xbox, and PC. But with GameCube you need to press Start then select Objectives & Maps. Think you handle it? Because the stuff accessed in this menu is not something you will live or die on for the seconds saved, it's almost irrelevant.

However, GameCube doesn't have a center-camera luxury, which the PS2 and Xbox activate with the Right Analog Stick button. Again, it's something you'll use rarely, but it is missing nonetheless.

In short, GameCube, PS2, and Xbox are all quite suitable over the PC. But, consider that GameCube is missing some very minor peripheral functionality.

Winner Ranking:
1. PS2/Xbox
2. GCN
3. PC

Difference between 1 and 2: minor
Difference between 2 and 3: major

http://www.pcgamer.com/reviews/review_2004-02-16a.html
Their complaints center around how the combat is simple and repetitive, not that the controls are bad. Seriously, where did you get that? I haven't seen any reviews yet that call the controls bad...

Quote:I never really noticed the whole spawning "problem" since I rarely ever died in the game, but yeah it is overall a bit too easy. And almost all PC games have save-anywhere functions which make it even easier than BG&E's generous respawning points, yet I don't hear you complaining about that.

In dungeons, I'd say that it's easier than save-anywhere, actually. Why? Because unless you're saving every two minuites, you'd have to go back farther with a save anywhere than with this 'in the last room' save system! I'd say it's MORE generous than save anywhere. And as I said it keeps the game moving, but drops the difficulty a lot... I'd honestly rather that it was more restrictive. Not 'start at the beginning of the dungeon' or anything annoying like that, but not quite as simple as it is... as it is there's really no penalty for dying.

Also, I thought it was painfully easy to avoid detection... turn around. Find nearest pipe/door/etc. Go through. Wait a few seconds. Return. Again, it keeps the game moving but makes it so EASY...

Quote:I can't believe you're complaining about the story as it's one of the most well-told video game stories to date. It's not a very complex story but the manner in which it is told is far better and more professional than most games(not counting pc adventures).

You're right, it is well told. I just found it too simple for a game with as much storytelling as that... as I remember from IGN's review, it's a complaint that the story wasn't more complex. It's obvious from the start that Alpha Section is evil. They are. Okay, so there's a lot of story along the way... but I can't help but feel that it's a simplistic (if verbose for its genre) one. A missed opportunity perhaps...

Quote:The combat is simple but fits the game just fine. For someone who loves titles like Gauntlet which are all about simple action, I'm surprised you're complaining.

Gauntlet... great game yes, and for that one simplicity is the best way it could be. It is more fun simple than it would be complex, I think. Each game is different. I like both simple games and complex, obviously. You know better than to say that I don't like complex games! Fine I like simple ones too, but that just means I like a variety of styles... and for this game, like PC Gamer (or IGN, I'm pretty sure)'s reviews say, the combat is just too simple for its own good. Oh, it's not like it isn't fun, it is (the combat). I just think it could be better...

Oh yeah, and isn't this what programmable gamepads are for? Though the keyboard controls work fine, and anyway I think I need new joystick drivers (blasted thing crashes or messes up far too often to be reliable for this kind of thing...)...

Awkward? A bit, but it's familiar too if you've played many 3d PC games!

Quote:<http://www.pcgamer.com/reviews/review_2004-02-16a.html>
Their complaints center around how the combat is simple and repetitive, not that the controls are bad. Seriously, where did you get that? I haven't seen any reviews yet that call the controls bad...

Read my above post.

There are only three, maybe four genres on the PC that control well with the mouse and keyboard. And 99.9% of all third-person action or adventure games control like first-person shooters because that is the only way to make the controls good without having to support an analogue gamepad. Games like Zelda and Mario could never work well with just a keyboard and mouse, and BG&E is no exception. PC game reviewers have to compare BG&E with other games in the genre on that format... which there are none. The game is excellent but the controls terrible, but when it comes to non-FPS controlling 3D games, only console gamers care about good controls (especially analog controls). So even if the controls are terribly awkward and aren't even analog (an atrocity for a game like BG&E) then they give the game a good score, because frankly there's nothing better.

Quote:In dungeons, I'd say that it's easier than save-anywhere, actually. Why? Because unless you're saving every two minuites, you'd have to go back farther with a save anywhere than with this 'in the last room' save system! I'd say it's MORE generous than save anywhere. And as I said it keeps the game moving, but drops the difficulty a lot... I'd honestly rather that it was more restrictive. Not 'start at the beginning of the dungeon' or anything annoying like that, but not quite as simple as it is... as it is there's really no penalty for dying.

That is ridiculous. In most PC games you can just press a button every five seconds to do a quicksave, so even if you make one tiny mistake you can go back half a second and fix it.

Quote:Also, I thought it was painfully easy to avoid detection... turn around. Find nearest pipe/door/etc. Go through. Wait a few seconds. Return. Again, it keeps the game moving but makes it so EASY...

That's how all stealth games are, just not quite as easy. You can describe any type of gameplay simply and make it sound dumb.For example:

All you do in Mario is press right and jump. It's so dumb and EASY.

Quote:You're right, it is well told. I just found it too simple for a game with as much storytelling as that... as I remember from IGN's review, it's a complaint that the story wasn't more complex. It's obvious from the start that Alpha Section is evil. They are. Okay, so there's a lot of story along the way... but I can't help but feel that it's a simplistic (if verbose for its genre) one. A missed opportunity perhaps...

The story is better told than even Metal Gear Solid, even though that game has a much more complex story. What is with you and equating complex with good? A simple, well-told story can be better than a complex, not-as-well-told story. And did you even beat the game?

Quote:Gauntlet... great game yes, and for that one simplicity is the best way it could be. It is more fun simple than it would be complex, I think. Each game is different. I like both simple games and complex, obviously. You know better than to say that I don't like complex games! Fine I like simple ones too, but that just means I like a variety of styles... and for this game, like PC Gamer (or IGN, I'm pretty sure)'s reviews say, the combat is just too simple for its own good. Oh, it's not like it isn't fun, it is. I just think it could be better...

Better would turn it into Wind Waker, and there isn't as much emphasis on combat in BG&E as there is in WW, plus the game is much shorter so there aren't a whole lot of battles.

Quote:Oh yeah, and isn't this what programmable gamepads are for? Though the keyboard controls work fine, and anyway I think I need new joystick drivers (blasted thing crashes or messes up far too often to be reliable for this kind of thing...)...

You still don't have analog controls, the biggest thing missing from the PC version. Have fun living in the stone age, though.

Quote:Awkward? A bit, but it's familiar too if you've played many 3d PC games!

Name ONE PC game that controls like BG&E.

Quote:Name ONE PC game that controls like BG&E.

Every game that has ever used WASD and the mouse to look has some noticable similarities, as several reviews of the PC versions say!

Quote:You still don't have analog controls, the biggest thing missing from the PC version. Have fun living in the stone age, though.

You have analog look, and as for movement, it's not a big deal, especially with both a 'faster' and a 'slower' modifier... though I don't use them much. Except for running to get places faster. :)

Quote:Better would turn it into Wind Waker, and there isn't as much emphasis on combat in BG&E as there is in WW, plus the game is much shorter so there aren't a whole lot of battles

True... and as I said the combat is fun enough that I don't feel like it's bad or anything. It's fine. But it could have been more complex or challenging...

Quote:The story is better told than even Metal Gear Solid, even though that game has a much more complex story. What is with you and equating complex with good? A simple, well-told story can be better than a complex, not-as-well-told story. And did you even beat the game?

No, and I'm sure more story is coming (including some I won't expect, I hope), but it doesn't look like there's going to be some huge plot twist... oh little things sure but the overall story was obvious from the start. That's normal in games, true, but if you're going on story as a major game aspect I'd expect more complexity...

You're right that complexity doesn't mean better storytelling, though. And on that respect the game does do very well. But it's still simpler than I would prefer. And, as the IGN review says, heavy-handed in its message at times, for sure.

Oh yeah, and simplistic! I mean, in a true military dictatorship would they allow people to openly protest in the streets? And the rebel group sure lets you into their secret hideout quickly and which a bare minimum, as far as we can tell, of checking to see if you are who you say you are... it tells a good story but then these things come and say 'this isn't using the storytelling to be as complex as it could be', and it still works but as I said is a missed opportunity.

Oh, and before you again say how I like games with minimal stories as I said I like both kinds. And a good story is always a plus. Story can make a otherwise mediocre game good... or a good game great...

Quote:That's how all stealth games are, just not quite as easy. You can describe any type of gameplay simply and make it sound dumb.For example:

All you do in Mario is press right and jump. It's so dumb and EASY.

You said it yourself, 'just not quite as easy'... fine you don't want it fully realistic in a game like this, but it could be a whole lot more. *thinks, for instance, of Thief... (of an example of 'a whole lot more', but more than I could possibly hope from this game)*

Quote:That is ridiculous. In most PC games you can just press a button every five seconds to do a quicksave, so even if you make one tiny mistake you can go back half a second and fix it.

Sure. But DO you? No! You forget sometimes, and go back quite a ways! With this that never happens. See my point?

Quote:There are only three, maybe four genres on the PC that control well with the mouse and keyboard. And 99.9% of all third-person action or adventure games control like first-person shooters because that is the only way to make the controls good without having to support an analogue gamepad. Games like Zelda and Mario could never work well with just a keyboard and mouse, and BG&E is no exception. PC game reviewers have to compare BG&E with other games in the genre on that format... which there are none. The game is excellent but the controls terrible, but when it comes to non-FPS controlling 3D games, only console gamers care about good controls (especially analog controls). So even if the controls are terribly awkward and aren't even analog (an atrocity for a game like BG&E) then they give the game a good score, because frankly there's nothing better.

Wow, that's a ... strong statement... and quite biased. You take what they say and move it to a very strong statement that wasn't intended. Yes, that IGN article says that it's awkward and stuff, but they don't say that it's terrible and unplayable, or that it reflects horribly on the game! And they say you get used to it. That isn't quite the condemnation you have here.

No action-adventure games on the PC? Umm... you'd better explain what you meant, and fast, because it sounds like sheer insanity to me at least!

Gamepad vs Keyboard/Mouse? Depends on the genre. For a FPS keyboard/mouse is a million times better. For a platformer or 3d action/adventure? Gamepad probably is better, yes. But oh-so-dramatically-that-it-overwhelms-all? No, I doubt it very much.

The worst complaint I can think of is that they're a bit irritating at times because they clearly just mapped the gamepad to PC controls instead of fully redoing it for the best setup on a mouse (mouse especially, the keyboard portion is as good as you could expect)... as I said, with the axes. But that's an issue you get used to quickly.

Oh, have you played the PC version?

Quote:Every game that has ever used WASD and the mouse to look has some noticable similarities, as several reviews of the PC versions say!

So it controls like a FPS?

Um... NOPE! You don't strafe and move with WASD.

So then it must control like an RTS?

NOPE again!

Yeah, you're right about this one!

*sigh*

Just because it used a keyboard does not mean that it controls anything like any other PC game.

Quote:You have analog look, and as for movement, it's not a big deal, especially with both a 'faster' and a 'slower' modifier... though I don't use them much. Except for running to get places faster.

You can't even control the camera well! The camera was not meant for a mouse. I can't believe you're defending the controls. Such low standards you have...

Quote:True... and as I said the combat is fun enough that I don't feel like it's bad or anything. It's fine. But it could have been more complex or challenging...

Which wouldn't have made it much better since combat isn't very important.

Quote:No, and I'm sure more story is coming (including some I won't expect, I hope), but it doesn't look like there's going to be some huge plot twist... oh little things sure but the overall story was obvious from the start. That's normal in games, true, but if you're going on story as a major game aspect I'd expect more complexity...

You're right that complexity doesn't mean better storytelling, though. And on that respect the game does do very well. But it's still simpler than I would prefer. And, as the IGN review says, heavy-handed in its message at times, for sure.

Oh yeah, and simplistic! I mean, in a true military dictatorship would they allow people to openly protest in the streets? And the rebel group sure lets you into their secret hideout quickly and which a bare minimum, as far as we can tell, of checking to see if you are who you say you are... it tells a good story but then these things come and say 'this isn't using the storytelling to be as complex as it could be', and it still works but as I said is a missed opportunity.

Oh, and before you again say how I like games with minimal stories as I said I like both kinds. And a good story is always a plus. Story can make a otherwise mediocre game good... or a good game great...

Good grief, you haven't even finished the game! Your questions will be answered if you actually BEAT it. :screwy:

Quote:You said it yourself, 'just not quite as easy'... fine you don't want it fully realistic in a game like this, but it could be a whole lot more. *thinks, for instance, of Thief... (of an example of 'a whole lot more', but more than I could possibly hope from this game)*

Oh right, you're comparing the stealth in a game that has only a few moments of stealth to a game that's ALL about stealth. Why dont't you complain about how the racing sections aren't as good as F-Zero, either, and that the flying parts aren't as good as Star Fox.

Quote:Sure. But DO you? No! You forget sometimes, and go back quite a ways! With this that never happens. See my point?

Yes, your point is that you're too forgetful to press "F5". Amazing.

Quote:Wow, that's a ... strong statement... and quite biased. You take what they say and move it to a very strong statement that wasn't intended. Yes, that IGN article says that it's awkward and stuff, but they don't say that it's terrible and unplayable, or that it reflects horribly on the game! And they say you get used to it. That isn't quite the condemnation you have here.

Biased? Please, I play as many PC games as I do console ones. BG&E isn't unplayable with its shitty controls, but compared to the console versions it is amazingly bad.

Quote:No action-adventure games on the PC? Umm... you'd better explain what you meant, and fast, because it sounds like sheer insanity to me at least!

No Zelda-type games. Name one aside from BG&E.

Quote:Gamepad vs Keyboard/Mouse? Depends on the genre. For a FPS keyboard/mouse is a million times better. For a platformer or 3d action/adventure? Gamepad probably is better, yes. But oh-so-dramatically-that-it-overwhelms-all? No, I doubt it very much.

You can actually play a FPS very well on a console and there are actually great advantages to using a dual-analog controller in a FPS, while playing a game like BG&E on a PC has NO advantages whatsoever and plays absolutely terribly. Your extreme bias amazes me. It is obvious to me that you have very little regard for good controls.

Quote:The worst complaint I can think of is that they're a bit irritating at times because they clearly just mapped the gamepad to PC controls instead of fully redoing it for the best setup on a mouse (mouse especially, the keyboard portion is as good as you could expect)... as I said, with the axes. But that's an issue you get used to quickly.

There is no way BG&E could play well with a kb&m unless they made it play like Max Payne, and even then it would be bad.

Quote:Oh, have you played the PC version?

Of course I have, I wouldn't be debating this with you if I had not. You see, unlike you I do not argue something without anything to back it up, or without fully understanding why I believe that way.

Quote:Good grief, you haven't even finished the game! Your questions will be answered if you actually BEAT it.

... umm I described exactly where I was in the game so this should not exactly be a surprise...

And unless something big changes that's more than just 'so far' because the whole game style seems pretty consistent.

Quote:So it controls like a FPS?

Um... NOPE! You don't strafe and move with WASD.

So then it must control like an RTS?

NOPE again!

Yeah, you're right about this one!

*sigh*

Just because it used a keyboard does not mean that it controls anything like any other PC game.

Yeah, because no PC games use left and right keys for turning left and right?

Oh, it lets you use the arrow keys too. It's harder because those other keys are grouped around the WASD and you need a hand on the mouse all the time for attack, but if you remap some things you could get that to work... then it'd be even more like a older PC title (because most PC games used to use the arrow keys for moving)...

Quote:Which wouldn't have made it much better since combat isn't very important.

But you do a lot of it, so of course it's relevant.

Quote:Oh right, you're comparing the stealth in a game that has only a few moments of stealth to a game that's ALL about stealth. Why dont't you complain about how the racing sections aren't as good as F-Zero, either, and that the flying parts aren't as good as Star Fox.

Oh, you're right. I just chose the first thing I could think of for 'really good stealth'. I know that expecting it to match that is utterly unfair, but it's the standard for stealth, I'd say... it doesn't have to match Thief, but it could to a better job than it does.

Quote:Yes, your point is that you're too forgetful to press "F5". Amazing.

I quicksave enough. But not before every single room in a game! This is like a quicksave before every single room. Thus, in most ways more lenient.

Oh, and it's not always F5... :D

Quote:You can't even control the camera well! The camera was not meant for a mouse. I can't believe you're defending the controls. Such low standards you have...

As I said, the keyboard part of the controls is just fine. Oh sure it's not analog, but analog isn't necessary and the slower/faster keys setup works fine. The mouse is where any problems are. And you are right, it isn't meant to be used in the ways it is, as I said -- it's obvious that it's just a transferred analog stick and not controls designed for a mouse (which they could have done if they'd wanted to take the time, but they didn't...). Maybe it'd be better with a trackball actually... but it's not so bad that you don't get used to it, especially if you play many PC games... it might not be quite normal but it's close enough that after a little while you adapt.

Quote:Of course I have, I wouldn't be debating this with you if I had not. You see, unlike you I do not argue something without anything to back it up, or without fully understanding why I believe that way.

Notice I'm not saying that this is better than the console one, because I haven't played them; just saying that I don't find the controls on the PC version so bad.

Quote:You can actually play a FPS very well on a console and there are actually great advantages to using a dual-analog controller in a FPS, while playing a game like BG&E on a PC has NO advantages whatsoever and plays absolutely terribly. Your extreme bias amazes me. It is obvious to me that you have very little regard for good controls.

Analog movement? Minor. I see no advantages and plenty of bad things to playing FPSes on consoles. I've tried to play PC FPSes a few times with my gamepads or joysticks... it's painful... okay console FPSes can do it better sometimes, but in no case has it been as good as keyboard and mouse.

Oh, and are you looking for advantages of the PC version? IGN says them in their review. If you have the system for it, the graphics are significantly better in the PC version than in the console versions. I'd bet that the dungeons at least (where the framerate is fine) on my system look better than any of the console versions... even at just 800x600 (I know 640x480 would get much better preformance, but I won't go down so low in res... not unless the whole game was unbearably slow, and it's not (and the slow parts are almost all not action parts (the only slower action scenes I'd had so far are when you have to fight baddies in the water with your boat, and there're just a couple of those)...

Quote:No Zelda-type games. Name one aside from BG&E.

Is ANYTHING quite like Zelda? Oh there are many action-adventure-rpg-ish games, but Zelda really is unique...

Action-RPG, the PC has in spades (yes many are top-down, but these are broad genres here...). Adventure-RPG (Quest for Glory's my thought here), the PC has a fair number of. Action-Adventure it has too.

Zelda clones? Okay, not huge numbers. But it has adventure games, and action games, and all of those varied subgenres... enough that BG&E isn't exactly alone.

Quote:... umm I described exactly where I was in the game so this should not exactly be a surprise...

And unless something big changes that's more than just 'so far' because the whole game style seems pretty consistent.

There's nothing wrong with the "game system" (whatever that means), but of course there are surprises in the story.

Quote:Yeah, because no PC games use left and right keys for turning left and right?

Maybe something like Grim Fandango where good controls are not important, but for an action game? NO!

Quote:Oh, it lets you use the arrow keys too. It's harder because those other keys are grouped around the WASD and you need a hand on the mouse all the time for attack, but if you remap some things you could get that to work... then it'd be even more like a older PC title (because most PC games used to use the arrow keys for moving)...

You don't get it. You're moving the character with your fingers when you should be moving her with a super-precise analog thumb stick. The fact that you cannot see that monumental difference shows your inability to differentiate between good and bad controls.

Quote:But you do a lot of it, so of course it's relevant.

There's not even a quarter of the combat that's in WW or even OoT.

Quote:Oh, you're right. I just chose the first thing I could think of for 'really good stealth'. I know that expecting it to match that is utterly unfair, but it's the standard for stealth, I'd say... it doesn't have to match Thief, but it could to a better job than it does.

You make me sick. BG&E is one of the best games of 2003 and all you can do is complain. Go back to playing shit like Gauntlet, ABF.

Quote:I quicksave enough. But not before every single room in a game! This is like a quicksave before every single room. Thus, in most ways more lenient.

With quicksave you can save wherever and whenever you want to!! Just because you're too damn lazy to press one key doesn't change the fact that it makes games much easier!

Quote:Oh, and it's not always F5...

Quote:As I said, the keyboard part of the controls is just fine. Oh sure it's not analog, but analog isn't necessary and the slower/faster keys setup works fine. The mouse is where any problems are. And you are right, it isn't meant to be used in the ways it is, as I said -- it's obvious that it's just a transferred analog stick and not controls designed for a mouse (which they could have done if they'd wanted to take the time, but they didn't...). Maybe it'd be better with a trackball actually... but it's not so bad that you don't get used to it, especially if you play many PC games... it might not be quite normal but it's close enough that after a little while you adapt.

You can also play Soul Calibur with a Dreamcast fishing controller, but if you can't tell that it's a billion times worse than using a joystick you're out of your mind. You sir are out of your mind.

Quote:Notice I'm not saying that this is better than the console one, because I haven't played them; just saying that I don't find the controls on the PC version so bad.

That's because you don't know what decent controls are.

Quote:Analog movement? Minor. I see no advantages and plenty of bad things to playing FPSes on consoles. I've tried to play PC FPSes a few times with my gamepads or joysticks... it's painful... okay console FPSes can do it better sometimes, but in no case has it been as good as keyboard and mouse.

FALSE. Analog movement makes a huge difference in FPS's, especially in stealth games like Deus Ex or Thief. Also, if you have normal thumbs (which you don't seem to have), aiming is not a problem and you can become almost as accurate as you would with a mouse. There are both disadvantages and advantages to using a kb&m setup or a dual-analog controller for a FPS, while using a kb&m for something like BG&E only has disadvantages. Try to prove me wrong. Please, I dare you to try.

Quote:Oh, and are you looking for advantages of the PC version? IGN says them in their review. If you have the system for it, the graphics are significantly better in the PC version than in the console versions. I'd bet that the dungeons at least (where the framerate is fine) on my system look better than any of the console versions... even at just 800x600 (I know 640x480 would get much better preformance, but I won't go down so low in res... not unless the whole game was unbearably slow, and it's not (and the slow parts are almost all not action parts (the only slower action scenes I'd had so far are when you have to fight baddies in the water with your boat, and there're just a couple of those)...

I know how powerful your PC is, and every console version looks much better than I'm sure it does on your PC. If you have a super-powerful PC then it could look great, but then you're still stuck with terrible controls.

Quote:Is ANYTHING quite like Zelda? Oh there are many action-adventure-rpg-ish games, but Zelda really is unique...

Action-RPG, the PC has in spades (yes many are top-down, but these are broad genres here...). Adventure-RPG (Quest for Glory's my thought here), the PC has a fair number of. Action-Adventure it has too.

Zelda clones? Okay, not huge numbers. But it has adventure games, and action games, and all of those varied subgenres... enough that BG&E isn't exactly alone.

You see? You can't even name ONE game like Zelda on the PC. It's simple, ABF. In order for a game to be somewhat similar to Zelda it has to share similar controls and feature action, exploration, and puzzle solving. That's it. Consoles are littered with games like that. PCs are not, because the standard control setup is not kind to third-person action games that do not control like FPS's.

i cannot be arsed to read any of this.

Quote:Maybe something like Grim Fandango where good controls are not important, but for an action game? NO!

... Resident Evil? (I mention it because I recall Grim Fandango's movement being compared to Resident Evil at least once)

But I'd say that there are many many PC games that are third person. And many of them use WASD!

Quote:You see? You can't even name ONE game like Zelda on the PC. It's simple, ABF. In order for a game to be somewhat similar to Zelda it has to share similar controls and feature action, exploration, and puzzle solving. That's it. Consoles are littered with games like that. PCs are not, because the standard control setup is not kind to third-person action games that do not control like FPS's.

The only thing I can think of that was compared to Zelda was a mediocre action-adventure a few years back called Hype: The Time Quest... the characters were Playmobil knights and stuff...

But as I said, how many games directly compare to Zelda? Are there many on PS2 or X-Box? Oh, there are plenty of action-adventures, and those other subcategories, but as I said PC has a lot of those as well.

And it is not true that most PC games are either RTSes or FPSes. I have several hundred PC games after all and only five are FPSes and probably a dozen or something like that RTS... :) What is true is that most PC games are made with PCs in mind (if they aren't ports). So a action-RPG goes more in the direction of Ultima (though that's closer to a hardcore RPG) or Diablo, and not closer to Zelda. And an action-adventure? I don't know... Tomb Raider? I know they were on PSX too but they've been on PC from the start... that's one anyway.

Quote:... Resident Evil? (I mention it because I recall Grim Fandango's movement being compared to Resident Evil at least once)

But I'd say that there are many many PC games that are third person. And many of them use WASD!

Resident Evil is a slow game, and its controls are purposefully bad.

AGAIN: Using WASD does not mean that they control the same!!!

As you can see by the chart I've created below, you've become so much of a retard that it's off the charts! Please see attached image.

Quote:The only thing I can think of that was compared to Zelda was a mediocre action-adventure a few years back called Hype: The Time Quest... the characters were Playmobil knights and stuff...

But as I said, how many games directly compare to Zelda? Are there many on PS2 or X-Box? Oh, there are plenty of action-adventures, and those other subcategories, but as I said PC has a lot of those as well.

And it is not true that most PC games are either RTSes or FPSes. I have several hundred PC games after all and only five are FPSes and probably a dozen or something like that RTS... What is true is that most PC games are made with PCs in mind (if they aren't ports). So a action-RPG goes more in the direction of Ultima (though that's closer to a hardcore RPG) or Diablo, and not closer to Zelda. And an action-adventure? I don't know... Tomb Raider? I know they were on PSX too but they've been on PC from the start... that's one anyway.

Most PC games that only use a kb&m CONTROL like FPSs or strategy games. That is because that control setup is extremely limited and is very poor for most genres.

OB1: Look at older, arcadish/"console style" PC games... the arrow keys, with control and alt as action buttons, was the norm you know... that lasted until... hmm, Quake? Somewhere around there when they switched to WASD and the mouse instead of arrow keys and control/alt/space like all the action games up until after Doom...

Just saying that it's not as simple a picture as you paint. :)

Or I could mention Tomb Raider again.

Quote:You make me sick. BG&E is one of the best games of 2003 and all you can do is complain. Go back to playing shit like Gauntlet, ABF.

I can't see what this has to do with that statement of mine.

Quote:With quicksave you can save wherever and whenever you want to!! Just because you're too damn lazy to press one key doesn't change the fact that it makes games much easier!

So you've always quicksaved before every room of every game you've ever played with quicksaving in it and never lost more than a minuite or two of gameplay? Somehow I doubt that. Next time think things through before you say them!

Quote:You don't get it. You're moving the character with your fingers when you should be moving her with a super-precise analog thumb stick. The fact that you cannot see that monumental difference shows your inability to differentiate between good and bad controls.

That's because it ISN'T a monumental difference. It's essentially the same as any other digital form of control, such as a d-pad. The fact that it's fingers, and not the thumb, isn't very relevant. Fine, it's less precise with four directions instead or many. And three speeds is less than however many are in the console versions. But you know what? I don't see a difference between those four buttons and a Nintendo crosspad... sure it's thumb vs fingers, but how does that matter much?

And for gameplay purposes the analog speeds are not necessary to play. Oh it makes the game easier perhaps, but it's not NECESSARY. I survived with a D-Pad in Rogue Squadron and Rayman 2, after all...

Quote:You can also play Soul Calibur with a Dreamcast fishing controller, but if you can't tell that it's a billion times worse than using a joystick you're out of your mind. You sir are out of your mind.

You know, like usual, it's not that I utterly dislike your opinions, but how you present them. If like a normal human being you thought about it and said 'I think that using the mouse isn't as good as using a joystick', I'd agree. But you don't. You go off on wild exaggerations, making insane statements that I can't help but disagree with even if I agree with part of it... you need to THINK! Wild exagerations don't get anyone anywhere. Acting like your opinion is the only valid one doesn't either. Thought and moderation help a lot... okay it's not possible all of the time, I'll certainly admit that, but you don't seem to try at ALL...

Fine, the mouse is a bit inferior to a joystick. Okay. That is true. But in a few hours you'll get used to it. You don't constantly move the camera anyway... most of the time the mouse serves well enough. And it provides for accurate pointing at things, and for movement too (remember that you will turn if you're going forward and moving the camera) at times when you want... fine it's not quite as good. But you go far, far overboard in your ranting about how much worse it is. That's the problem here.

This thread is long.

OB1 is annoying!

Quote:OB1 is annoying!

That could have been summed up in one post and saved bandwidth, rather than a 2 page debate.

;)

Quote:OB1: Look at older, arcadish/"console style" PC games... the arrow keys, with control and alt as action buttons, was the norm you know... that lasted until... hmm, Quake? Somewhere around there when they switched to WASD and the mouse instead of arrow keys and control/alt/space like all the action games up until after Doom...

Just saying that it's not as simple a picture as you paint.

Or I could mention Tomb Raider again.

ABF!! *knocks on dumbass's head* YOU'RE NOT LISTENING AGAIN! Listen up, idiot!

WASD does NOT equal "ALL CONTROLS ARE THE SAME"!!! You would us w to move forward, s for backwards, and a and d for strafing! That's not how BG&E controls!!

*ABF's retard meter breaks*

Quote:So you've always quicksaved before every room of every game you've ever played with quicksaving in it and never lost more than a minuite or two of gameplay? Somehow I doubt that. Next time think things through before you say them!

I quicksaved as often as I need to, genius. Strategic saving is key. Like in Splinter Cell, you can save right before you do something risky. BG&E does not allow for that.

Quote:That's because it ISN'T a monumental difference. It's essentially the same as any other digital form of control, such as a d-pad. The fact that it's fingers, and not the thumb, isn't very relevant. Fine, it's less precise with four directions instead or many. And three speeds is less than however many are in the console versions. But you know what? I don't see a difference between those four buttons and a Nintendo crosspad... sure it's thumb vs fingers, but how does that matter much?

And for gameplay purposes the analog speeds are not necessary to play. Oh it makes the game easier perhaps, but it's not NECESSARY. I survived with a D-Pad in Rogue Squadron and Rayman 2, after all...

And I survived in Sonic with Samba De Amigo maracas. But guess what? IT CONTROLLED LIKE SHIT!

:screwy:

You can't tell the difference between a dpad and four keyboard keys (try playing Street Fighter with a dpad). You can't even tell the difference between keyboard keys and analog thumbsticks. I think that proves my point.

Quote:You know, like usual, it's not that I utterly dislike your opinions, but how you present them. If like a normal human being you thought about it and said 'I think that using the mouse isn't as good as using a joystick', I'd agree. But you don't. You go off on wild exaggerations, making insane statements that I can't help but disagree with even if I agree with part of it... you need to THINK! Wild exagerations don't get anyone anywhere. Acting like your opinion is the only valid one doesn't either. Thought and moderation help a lot... okay it's not possible all of the time, I'll certainly admit that, but you don't seem to try at ALL...

Fine, the mouse is a bit inferior to a joystick. Okay. That is true. But in a few hours you'll get used to it. You don't constantly move the camera anyway... most of the time the mouse serves well enough. And it provides for accurate pointing at things, and for movement too (remember that you will turn if you're going forward and moving the camera) at times when you want... fine it's not quite as good. But you go far, far overboard in your ranting about how much worse it is. That's the problem here.

ABF, you have a very poor grasp of what it means to have good controls. I'm more sensitive to that. Case closed.

Hmm, skimming that, seems OB1 for a while kept saying "I refuse to read that" because he was being a JERK (honestly OB1, you can't expect people to listen to you unless you do them the same, reasons are irrelevent no matter what IN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE they are, EVER), and THEN he responded TO it anyway, showing he frickin' lied. Then, he stopped saying that and they argued on into the wee hours of the morn, ABF saying he's fine with the controls and they do well enough for him to know what the gameplay is like, and OB1 claiming he knows the truth better even though he never once touched them.

While OB1 has many valid points regarding how controls can ruin a game, they don't matter because ABF is fine with the controls and is playing the game well enough and his opinion is just as valid as anyone else's.

OK dumbass, time for me to rip apart that idiotic post of yours.

Quote:Hmm, skimming that, seems OB1 for a while kept saying "I refuse to read that" because he was being a JERK (honestly OB1, you can't expect people to listen to you unless you do them the same, reasons are irrelevent no matter what IN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE they are, EVER), and THEN he responded TO it anyway, showing he frickin' lied.

I read it the second time he posted it. The first time I did not read it, so I did not lie.

Quote:Then, he stopped saying that and they argued on into the wee hours of the morn, ABF saying he's fine with the controls and they do well enough for him to know what the gameplay is like, and OB1 claiming he knows the truth better even though he never once touched them.

I stated very clearly that I have played the PC version, which is why I know how it controls. Perhaps you should start reading my posts before you make yourself look like a jackass.

Quote:While OB1 has many valid points regarding how controls can ruin a game, they don't matter because ABF is fine with the controls and is playing the game well enough and his opinion is just as valid as anyone else's.

And that's fine that he's alright with the controls, but they are terrible controls and since he insisted on debating that fact, I obliged.

when OB1 posted that comparison of controls for the ps2/xbox/gc...i never realized how jipped i got with the controls...i thought they were wonderful. damn IGN for spoiling my retrospective experience. my memories of the game will now no longer be what they were because i now know that my experience was not the best it could be. damn them.

You also got the PC version? Geez...

Hahaha.... ABF retard chart. I always knew ABF suffered from Retardo, but I didn't want to bring it up... there's no cure for Retardo.

His opinion is valid DJ, but a good game designer spends as much time on the controls as any other aspect of the game. Rare for example was always very proud of their control schemes. If you only played the emulated version of Banjo~Kazooie you missed the entire experience since it was designed for the N64 controller from the ground up. I can have an opinion that I like to move my Tint bar on my TV until everything's green because I like green better but i'm completely ruining the experience. If Mario was green and Luigi was purple life wouldn't be worth living, and how would you know what suit upgrade you have in Metroid if you made everything green!? would you go READ the MENUS!? OMG....... that's like masturbating with headphones on.

ABF, I'm sorry if I offended you but whenever I see someone play a version of a game with bad controls it's like seeing a parent send their kid to a house full of hungry wolves as daycare.

no way, i got the GC version...but i couldn't instantly access maps like with the PS2 and Xbox...i had to hit start and then access through a menu. gasp.

The horror!!

I beat the GC version and that didn't bother me.

Only because you didn't know any better.

Well it's only one button... it's not like it was missing analog controls or anything like that.

But you'll never get that wasted second of your life back! EVER!!!

Not if I find a time machine!!

But that'll take time!!

Yeah but... with a time machine I can just go back to right now and--- HEY! My future self is here!

Ask him about E3 2004!

... I already did! In the FUTURE!!!

Nintendo totally owned the show, and showed off playable demos of Metroid Prime 2, Star Fox 2, and videos of Wind Waker 2, Mario 128, Fire Emblem, and a really insane but awesome looking surprise title from Nintendo (I don't want to spoil it, but think "open-ended RPG pirate game")!! The DS was also a big surprise as it was actually quite awesome, and the games looked much better than your typical N64 game. Nintendo showed off tons of DS games, including a new Zelda game, a new Metroid game, and the first new 2D Mario game since Yoshi's Island, aptly named Super Mario Bros. 6. My future self said that it featured an incredible blend of 2D and 3D graphics and was easily the best DS game of the show. The touch screen was better than most people thought it would be, too. In Mario 6 it allowed you to paint objects in the world using the touch pad while you played, which may sound weird but worked incredibly well. Imagine running through a level and then drawing a boat which you could then ride to the next world, or drawing Mario a cape so that he could fly. Really awesome stuff.

SMB6 isn't apt at all!

If you are going to make up a future, make the DS as powerful as a Gamecube, or near it!

SMB 6 would be perfect! I'd love it if they did that. Remember that there hasn't been one single Mario Bros. platformer since Yoshi's Island. Well, actually, Mario World, but you know...

Let's see um... sorry no, I don't know. SMW was World, not Bros.

Go ahead, travel all around time, but you'll still be aging, and you'll eventually die of old age even if you ARE in the ice age at the time!

Even Scott Bakula got older. Despite his little theory of quantum time.

Have you ever thought about what you would really do if you had a time machine? Because if a time machine is ever to exist in our life times and we're able to use it, then that wish would instantly come true when you make it. But what if we can only communicate with our former selves indirectly Heaven as we know it is a place our soul goes when we die. Well if there is an afterlife then it would have no time or space, everything would happen at any given point in the anti-time. You would get answers before you knew questions. An itch would go away before you realized you had it because you already scratched it before it happened and before you scratched it. Any thought you have would have already formed so you effectively stop thinking or reasoning and still gain experience and insight without the conscious knowledge of how you aqcuired it! Imagine this scenario; You're about to walk outside on a hot day to get the mail and you think about looking in the mirror to make sure your hair looks good. You would already have a mental image in your head of what your hair looks like right now and you would be holding the mail. Because it was hot outside you would be sweating but you would have thought to drink something cold and turn the air conditioner on, so now you are holding the mail and an empty drink with the memory of what it tasted like. Then of course you would have opened the mail to see what it was let's say 47 seconds in the future but the mail is still in your hand with the memory of what you read inside it and the mail would also exist simultaneously in the mail box since you haven't gone outside in the present as would the glass you used for your drink which would still be full though you remember drinking it. You know the air conditioner is on but it's off, and you're getting cold but you haven't touched the air conditioner yet so you're essentially waiting to feel something in the present because your memories would be contradicting eachother. Now you're standing in the living room holding your hands out believing that you're holding the mail that you already read and a drink that you already drank and confident that your hair looks good even though you haven't seen it yet, neither of those things have happened yet. You would feel the cold refreshing air on your skin but the air conditioner is off and you're debating in your mind on whether or not you're too cold or too hot. You look on the table and you see stamps, paper and a pen. You have a memory of writing a letter back to reply to the mail you just got which in reality is the reply to a letter you sent out that hasn't happened yet but you remember doing just recently because in reality, in your mind, it never happened and you're not holding anything but you have the memory of it all happening in a logical order but it really all happened at once and now only exists in your mind in that logical order. Weird.

Quote:when OB1 posted that comparison of controls for the ps2/xbox/gc...i never realized how jipped i got with the controls...i thought they were wonderful. damn IGN for spoiling my retrospective experience. my memories of the game will now no longer be what they were because i now know that my experience was not the best it could be. damn them.

Heh... :)

Quote:Hmm, skimming that, seems OB1 for a while kept saying "I refuse to read that" because he was being a JERK (honestly OB1, you can't expect people to listen to you unless you do them the same, reasons are irrelevent no matter what IN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE they are, EVER), and THEN he responded TO it anyway, showing he frickin' lied. Then, he stopped saying that and they argued on into the wee hours of the morn, ABF saying he's fine with the controls and they do well enough for him to know what the gameplay is like, and OB1 claiming he knows the truth better even though he never once touched them.

While OB1 has many valid points regarding how controls can ruin a game, they don't matter because ABF is fine with the controls and is playing the game well enough and his opinion is just as valid as anyone else's.

"Jerk" is a good summation of how he was acting, that's for sure. Well, "childish" works quite well too...

Oh, and as you know according to OB1 only OB1's opinion is valid; all others are dependant on if OB1 agrees to make them valid.

Quote:And that's fine that he's alright with the controls, but they are terrible controls and since he insisted on debating that fact, I obliged.

You think they're terrible. That's very different from them BEING TERRIBLE. That "proof" of yours? It supports me. The way IGN said it sounded closer to what I'd say (though going farther than I probably would in saying that it's a very noticable downgrade)... it's a factor you might want to think about, but you get used to it and it works well enough for the game to still be very fun. That's pretty much what they said. I'd say that there are a few issues with the control but again, not nearly enough to even come close to ruining the fun... you just can't take IGN's review or comparison to support your radical view on this! It doesn't!

Quote:ABF!! *knocks on dumbass's head* YOU'RE NOT LISTENING AGAIN! Listen up, idiot!

WASD does NOT equal "ALL CONTROLS ARE THE SAME"!!! You would us w to move forward, s for backwards, and a and d for strafing! That's not how BG&E controls!!

*ABF's retard meter breaks*

You know, generally in games controls are "configurable"... same here... well you can't reconfigure the mouse axes, but you shouldn't because that's the only analog control the PC has really (by default). The buttons are all configurable. As for how the movement goes, fine it's not sidestepping, but didn't I metion Resident Evil, Grim Fandango, Tomb Raider, etc? Okay those aren't quite the same, but the controls are along similar lines in many ways!

Quote:I quicksaved as often as I need to, genius. Strategic saving is key. Like in Splinter Cell, you can save right before you do something risky. BG&E does not allow for that.

No, it autosaves before anything risky. You'll never have to replay more than a minuite or two of gameplay. Fine in some cases you'll have to redo something challenging, maybe, if you die (though generally not), but ... I mean, how could you not see my point???? Fine you can't save DURING a challenge, but that's a feature I've seen in some games. Like, oh, Eternal Darkness? Or Baldur's Gate... you can't autosave during combat. Similar thing here really except instead of an autosave it's a quicksave at the start of the challenge. I'm sure that OVERALL you spend less time replaying lost territory with this autosave than with a quicksave system because with quicksaves you can get cocky and not save, and then get in a challenge you can't beat and die and go way back (especially in games like this where you can't save during combat)...

Quote:And I survived in Sonic with Samba De Amigo maracas. But guess what? IT CONTROLLED LIKE SHIT!



You can't tell the difference between a dpad and four keyboard keys (try playing Street Fighter with a dpad). You can't even tell the difference between keyboard keys and analog thumbsticks. I think that proves my point.

If you actually "read" what I "wrote" (I know, challenging concepts for you), you'd know that that is absolutely false. Seriously, how you take what I say and twist it to me not seeing any difference between control methods is sheer insanity. You don't READ WHAT I WROTE. Oh, you "read" it, but you don't TRY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT I ACTUALLY MEANT. You just take it to mean your own thing, what you KNOW I "actually" meant. It's INCREDIBLY, INCREDIBLY annoying and for us to ever get anywhere in our arguements it REALLY has to stop. This is a perfect example.

I said that using WSAD and a d-pad are functionally the same. That does not mean 'identical in every way'. I did not say that. I said 'functionally the same'. As in, for gameplay the differences are not great. They are obviously greater for an analog stick because analog sticks and digital buttons are different in plenty of ways -- analog sticks are more precise for aiming, but harder to point in a specific direction (see: how they are bad for 2d fighting games; playing CvS2 on the analog stick is horrible!); give multiple speeds; etc. And d-pad/keys are obviously different.

Oh, you're right about one thing -- for some games analog sticks are definitely better. Rogue Squadron, as I've said many times, is a good example of that -- I played it on my Sidewinder, and when you tap a direction it'd kind of 'jump' a bit in that direction... so when a target was 'between points' it could be a pain to hit it. A analog stick would obviously have been better. (If you're wondering why I have the PC version, simple. I didn't have an N64 then.) As for Rayman 2, it's more like Beyond Good & Evil -- playing it on a d-pad is NOT a significant gameplay hinderance. For an example of one where it is, I remember the PC demo of Starshot (a platformer also released on N64). Going on some narrow paths (floating diagonal platforms) was hard because with a d-pad you couldn't quite get going in the right direction... that obviously is better in analog. Rayman 2 isn't like that and worked fine. Oh sure I'm sure there were some disadvantages, but nothing so major that it impacts how much fun you're having in the game.

Beyond Good & Evil works the same way.

NOW do you understand what I meant? And no stupid response! Think it over for once!

Quote:ABF, you have a very poor grasp of what it means to have good controls. I'm more sensitive to that. Case closed.

I know really bad controls. For instance, Toy Story for Game Boy. TERRIBLE TERRIBLE controls! There was big lag between presses and actions and it seemed to run at an abysmal framerate... Woody moved like he was in molasses all the time. Truly an awful game.

Beyond Good & Evil simply does not have awful controls. It just has controls that you have to get used to, because they are a bit different from what you're used to (using the mouse to attack- I'm still not used to having left mouse be the main attack button... that and the parts where the mouse is a unidirectional axis are the two points where I'd say the controls need work. I've been thinking about mapping something on the keyboard to main attack but can't think of a good button...) But for most of the gameplay they work fine.

As for analog movement, there are no problems with reaching any places or going anywhere. As for speed, that's something that you don't notice when it's not there... I remember Monkey Island 4. I played most of it on a d-pad, but then tried it on my (then new) Gravis pad with a analog stick... pressing forward made you run! It was a nice addition I made use of, and simplified things from having to press the key. However, not having it was not a game-killing problem. It's simply a minor annoyance you very quickly get used to. It's the same here.

Now, I'd call this a pretty good explanation. I hope that this time you "listen", and respond in kind, instead of more one-line (or so) insults. That gets us NOWHERE.

Dark Jaguar Wrote:Let's see um... sorry no, I don't know. SMW was World, not Bros.

Go ahead, travel all around time, but you'll still be aging, and you'll eventually die of old age even if you ARE in the ice age at the time!

I guess that Star Trek Generations isn't Star Trek VII because it doesn't have the number in the title, right? Mario World is the fourth Super Mario Bros. game.

ABF, this is boring. I've said all I need to say, and if I reply to your stupid post I'm just going to repeat myself over and over again. This has to stop.