Quote: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.
The fact you said that means that I am not getting through to you, that's for sure. But then again, it's what I expected... you never listen.
And I think my description of what I meant by the controls in these games is quite good.
I think your description is about as asinine as everything else you say.
I say that with love, of course. Seriously man, you're so friggin boring! And thick-headed. Perhaps DJ's way of leaving a pointless debate is one I should have taken up a long time ago. Good bye retarded debates!
No, I didn't really think of Generations as STVII actually, just the first "next generation" movie... A whole new series... You know what I mean though, so it's not much point. (And on an added note, when I first heard of SMW on the news it seems like they were originally actually going to call it SMB4, so you know, whatever.)
You know OB1, you learned something important today. Just remember, "only a fool takes up a fool's argument".
So according to you there's no difference between a game where you do have issues getting where you want to go with the controls offered and one where you don't? Because as far as analog movement goes, that is the issue here...
That first sentence made no sense whatsoever.
Starshot: Found it hard to get across some platforms because of how the d-pad adapted to a game made for analog (in directions). Rogue Squadron: aiming was a pain at times because of the digital aiming.
These make the game harder to play without analog. You can certainly survive (I beat RS), but it's not as good (though the great graphics helped, for that game...)
Rayman 2: nothing of note (button for run is on the level of the button for run in Monkey Island 4 that I detailed above). BG&E: Kind of strange to use mouse for fire, and using mouse for one axis (two-directional movement) at times is weird. Oh, and buttons for run/creep.
Now, as I said, those three things are are legitimate complaints. However, they aren't ones that ruin the fun of the game, or make me less able to critisize what I see in it!
Oh, and I'd far rather talk about the other subjects that I made points for in previous days but you won't, you kept it coming just back to this stupid subject... because according to you I can't talk about anything else since I have the PC version.
Finally. I want you to explain something. How is using a thumb or several fingers a huge, majorly-game-affecting difference? I really want you to explain that, because I don't get it. Oh, sure, a gamepad is better for most console-style games, but in some cases they work better than others... and thumbs or fingers, I'd say, is one of the least of the problems with using a keyboard.
Oh, I thought of something... Oni! That's a PC game that was also on PS2, didn't allow gamepads, and had perfectly good controls (in a game I liked a lot)...
Oni had terrible controls.
You just don't like good controls, man.
Oni was a very fun game. The only problems I can think of are that it wasn't longer, didn't have a sequel, and the save system was annoying (save points are evil when they are so far apart!). The combat, however, was great fun. More precisely, the combat is the biggest part of WHY the game is fun, especially the hand-to-hand part...
You are just weird. :)
Oni is C-R-A-P. On a crap cracker.
In your opinion. But I liked it, and think it's an underrated game... the combat was great! The weapon-based part was pretty average (though some guns were kind of cool), but the hand-to-hand stuff was great...
http://www.gamefaqs.com/computer/doswin/...25345.html
Reasonable scores. :)
If you want other PC 3D action games also on consoles, how about Giants? I seem to remember using mouse/keyboard for that one as well... :)
:poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop: :poop:
Oh yes, that sure convinces me!
Seriously, the reviews of Oni all agreed that it was a great concept but the execution was flawed. It got mostly scores in the 70s. I can understand that and see where they found flaws in the execution... I just didn't find them nearly as important as the good points, so I'd probably give it something in the upper 80s...
Also, note no scores below 6. Okay it's user reviews, but usually if it's that bad SOMEONE would do a really bad review...
I'm not trying to convince you of anything, just like I won't try to convince Old Man Freferdane that eating his feces is really gross.
Yes, because of course your opinion overrides the opinions of everyone else on the planet!
When you say things like that, as DJ has also said, you sound like you are saying "you are insane and very stupid and my opinion is obviously more right than yours, but I won't argue because you are too stupid to understand". That is incredibly insulting and about as far from the truth as you can possibly get. I make reasonable arguements. You don't really respond in kind -- most often it's insults or repetitions of your previous points, not a response in similarly reasoned arguements taking what I said into account! And you call ME stupid! It boggles the mind.
I posted a link to reader reviews. The scores were between 6 and 9 with somewhere around 10 reviews. And it links a half dozen more professional sites, all of which give Oni for PC scores between about 6 and 8. That isn't a great game, but it's not bad. The scores back up the most common comment about Oni: "ambitious, but flawed". And as I said I understand and agree with that point... even if I would give it a higher score because of how fun I found it. :)
Seriously, figure out when your opinion differs from what is the more objective one. I try to (not saying I always AGREE with that objective opinion, but I don't say that mine is more right than it just because I said so like you do!)... you don't.
Oh, and I didn't mention Oni because of its quality, I mentioned it to show that there are 3d PC games that use controls with some similarities to what is in BG&E... not the same, I'd agree, but close enough that you will recognize it. Giants is another example there. Different certainly, but the same in essential things like how you control... oh sure the keys are different in some cases but I just don't see that as nearly as important as the functions those keys do...
I mean, is WSAD very different from the arrow keys? They use different hands, after all. That means it is a difference... but how important a difference? That I do not know. Debatable, I guess. Like 'thumb vs fingers' for movement. :) (And if you'd actually TALK about the subject I would debate it, but you don't! How am I expected to make any points when you say nothing that actually responds to what I am saying?) It's a bit different on your hands, but the onscreen results are (or, depending on the game, can be -- remember this is a PC and most games have customizable controls...) similar enough that BG&E's controls are not exactly utterly unique. The few aspects that ARE different are, as I said, those relics of it being an analog stick game originally... and are somewhat irritating until you get used to them.
Eh, I know your real problem here. It's not that I got the PC version. It's that I said I didn't like it as much as you. You were just looking for excuses once I said that. :)
Set the "Jump" command to the right mouse button for better precision.
...
...
...
I used to do that with FPSs...but then I realized that it was dumb.
Quote:Yes, because of course your opinion overrides the opinions of everyone else on the planet!
You finally got it!
Quote:Set the "Jump" command to the right mouse button for better precision.
...
...
...
I used to do that with FPSs...but then I realized that it was dumb.
I put Jump on center-mouse usually, actually... or maybe right. It probably depends on the game, I don't know. :) But having jump easily accessible is good...
Quote:You finally got it!
You make it sound humorous there but the way you act...
Quote:I put Jump on center-mouse usually, actually... or maybe right. It probably depends on the game, I don't know. But having jump easily accessible is good...
I just use the spacebar now.
ABF, you are dumb. There's absolutely no point in seriously responding to you anymore.
If you can't figure out that my points are worth thought (the parts that are points, that is... the parts that are insults are just out of how amazingly stupid you are...), then maybe there isn't because you clearly need serious help...
Look. I write long posts describing my position in good detail. You respond with "you are stupid". What ELSE am I supposed to think, other than that you are a moron?
Either you have some of the highest standards in the world or you just need to seriously reconsider how you use terms like 'awful'... I'd say the latter.
I'm sorry but most of the time the only appropriate response to your posts is "you're an idiot". I mean you really are, just look back at any of the debates we've ever had. You rarely make any sense, you ignore fact and reason, and your opinions are insane.
Um, if you go and LOOK at this arguement, I see myself trying to make sense but your responses essentially making that impossible with how nonsensical and focused on insulting, not on actually trying to get anywhere, that they are.
I think in this thread I've tried to move the discussion forward at least a half dozen times but each time you just say "you are insane" and don't respond to anything I say! HOW IS THAT MY FAULT!!!
Seriously, as always, all I want is for you to respond to what I said. I can't understand why you refuse.
I ended this "debate" a long time ago, and when you tried to continue with insanely stupid posts, I called you an idiot.
Think about that for a moment.
Oh, right, you tried to end it... by leaving with callling me an idiot and all of my points stupid? Without actually explaining why you think anything you said ("you are stupid" is NOT, contrary to your belief, an explanation)? Without saying how most of my arguements had any flaws in them? And yet you expect me to beleive your position for even one second?
Maybe for once somewhere inside you know that some of my points are right but you can't admit it so you won't say anything, I don't know... though I honestly doubt that because I do not think that you read most of my posts where I nicely explained my positions. I did three of them, and you didn't reply to one thing in any of them (except for a somewhat off-topic attack on the quality of Oni -- which I defended with proof and you ignored... Seriously, how is a lot of 'you are stupid' images an even remotely effective reply to 'the game isn't awful, it's just an ambitious game that is somewhat flawed, and all the reviews agree with me'???)!
If you can't take the time to actually respond to any of the issues I raised, or think about any of the explanations I provided for why I said things the way I did, then you shouldn't start these things. Just act like Darunia and avoid all long posts if you won't actually take the time to consider them before you respond!
I'd explain myself again but I know you would ignore every word I say so it's pointless. You have no interest in actually understanding what I mean.
For once I am actually taking DJ's advice and leaving your idiotic debate. You are devoid of all logic and reason and I refuse to respond to your inane comments anymore.
If you think that you have used any logic in this post then you are stupid beyond any hope of reason. Sorry, but it's true.
Great retort.
*sarcastically claps*
I try my best to be nice, but when you act like a fool it's pretty hard...
How you can look at this arguement and see even the vaguest hint of logic in your overall train of thought is completely beyond me.
Your ignoring my complaints about you, though, that's just your standard practice. I expected THAT. But I was hoping that you'd at least read my comments about the actual debate...
If I read your post then I will be filled with rage and baffleness (I think that's a word) over how one person can have so much stupidity inside of him that I'll compelled to respond in a mean and sarcastic manner. And then it will continue until the end of time, which I will not have. Instead of caring what you think, I will just let you live in bizarro ABF world.
How, exactly, does a real attempt at a logical explanation for my criteria for categorizing games that are both on console and PC, based mostly on games I own, turn out incredibly stupid if you don't read it? You quit reading my posts well before the point where I think I began to explain myself better... in some issues at least.
Of course, if you haven't played those games you'd have little idea what I was talking about...
I fully understand your crazy points, but you refuse to listen to logic and just repeat yourself over and over. I'm sick of it.
(this isn't on the main subject, you know, so you can read it...)
I would like to resolve the minor issue of quicksaves (first, anyway...). I see plenty of common ground here for a resolution there at least. Fine, in quicksaves you can save anytime and if you mash the button without fail every two minuites it's the best save system. Quicksaves mixed with some form of autosave (at area entries?) is the best system probably, though... it's got the advantages of quicksave, but without the issue of losing massive blocks of time if you forget to save for a while and die (depending on the size of areas...). Now, I don't think I ever lost lots of time in, say, Eternal Darkness, but if I hadn't been so faithful about saving a lot it'd certainly have been possible. I know it's in a completely different genre but Baldur's Gate II is what I'm playing most now and it's a good example here... it does have autosaves at area entries but areas are large. I've lost at least half an hour of play, maybe more, three or four times now by dying... I'm doing well, breezing through... stop quicksaving... then hit a really hard fight and die. And of course once the enemies are onscreen it's too late -- no saving while in combat.
BG&E? If the saves put you in places where you were right before some challenge and after dying had to do it over and over to get to the area beyond you well might have a much better point -- ie, if the auto-restore points weren't so numerous. But they are. They're before every single room! As I said it greatly reduces the frustration of dying and gets rid of the frusteration of doing a challenge twice, but isn't that frusteration a big part of what makes games challenging? Too much of it is bad, sure, but BG&E just has too little.
So yes, if you could quicksave you could save halfway through a room and maybe make some things a bit easier. But on the whole I'd say the fact you don't lose any time to death will far, far more than make up for that and make this system actually be one that you complete the game FASTER with than with quicksaves.
Especially given the fact that WHEN YOU DIE IT GIVES YOU FOUR HEALTH! ... uh, I was happy to see it at the time and I'm sure it saved me a couple of the times I died, but thinking about it it's yet another way to drop the difficulty level even lower...
As for the main topic, as I said, it seems to more be about degrees than anything (how much one form of controls is better or worse than another -- keyboard vs gamepad, etc...). But I don't see us getting very far.
