12th March 2010, 11:24 PM
KI may look better, but it's such a horribly unfun game to play (sorry, I despise combo memorization and that is 100% of KI's gameplay pretty much, unless you just button mash and lose constantly as a result) that yes, I'd rather play OMF2097...
Overall though fighting games are a genre where I would say the Japanese are better, by a big margin. Mortal Kombat, KI, Mace: The Dark Age, OMF, or whatever versus Street Fighter or King of Fighters? It's not even remotely close.
Describing yourself in this thread there, I gather?
I'm not sure whether you're serious or just writing this for the sheer troll joy of it... it's so obviously so completely ludicrous that it's hard to take you seriously when you're saying such insane things...
Have you ever actually played a PC game? It doesn't sound like you really have based on the stuff you say here... either that or you booted it up once, got scared off by "menus", and decided to hate them forever or something for that...
Yes, in the '80s and early '90s PC games often had inscrutable, poorly designed interfaces. Buttons were often little drawings, and those drawings were usually not labelled with any kind of popup tooltip that told you what it did. Sometimes the "background art" image of a town for instance would actually be the menu screen, and without the help of any color-changing cursor you'd have to click on the various things to access different locations and features (and I am not just talking about adventure games here). Those things were true in the early '90s and earlier, and I'll agree that the interfaces often do come across as poorly designed.
However, by the mid '90s that had changed, and clearly labeled menu buttons, popup help, etc. had become the standard. That stuff wasn't there forever. Win95 games usually do not do those things.
Also, the poorly designed menus were not why the the games were complex, though. They were complex because the part of the game that actually matters -- the gameplay, not the interface -- was usually even deeper and even more complex than that interface. A great game is worth a mediocre interface if it's a great game. Who cares if it takes an hour to get used to the interface if you then get dozens or more hours of gameplay out of the game? And remember, PC games always gave the player lots of content, unlike most console games. :)
Also, the manuals were usually great, describing every detail of the game interface in depth. PC gamers read the manual first if they wanted to actually be able to play the game -- and that's how it should be. Having the manual be worthwhile. :)
I believe that the longest manual I have is SimEarth's... it's like 250 pages long, and describes every single menu and system in that very complicated, yet brilliant, game in great detail. Awesome, awesome stuff.
... And here's one more example of why you're either not being serious or aren't reading a single word I'm saying. Or both. Go back and read what I've written, then come have an actual discussion. There's no point talking to someone ignoring every word you say.
I mean, I think I just posted a quite extensive amount of proof of how popular and successful PC gaming was for many years, how it was more popular than console gaming in all three main gaming regions at some point or another,and how it still is that popular in some places. If that's not enough for you, absolutely nothing ever will be.
Overall though fighting games are a genre where I would say the Japanese are better, by a big margin. Mortal Kombat, KI, Mace: The Dark Age, OMF, or whatever versus Street Fighter or King of Fighters? It's not even remotely close.
Quote:Unbelievable, this is like those threads where crackhead fans try to show how amazingly groundbreaking the Sega CD was and drive you mad wit their disillusions.
Describing yourself in this thread there, I gather?
I'm not sure whether you're serious or just writing this for the sheer troll joy of it... it's so obviously so completely ludicrous that it's hard to take you seriously when you're saying such insane things...
Quote:This elitism is part of the problem, "Oh you dont like it because its more complicated." That, right there, is what a good portion of so-called PC gamer's mentality. The truth, PC games aren't more complicated, they're simpler because they were made by people who dont understand the fundamentals of game design, but are complicated because of the ugly interface and exaggerated subsystems that constitutes as gameplay in some bizarre off-world that only blue-blooded PC gamers think are good.
Have you ever actually played a PC game? It doesn't sound like you really have based on the stuff you say here... either that or you booted it up once, got scared off by "menus", and decided to hate them forever or something for that...

Yes, in the '80s and early '90s PC games often had inscrutable, poorly designed interfaces. Buttons were often little drawings, and those drawings were usually not labelled with any kind of popup tooltip that told you what it did. Sometimes the "background art" image of a town for instance would actually be the menu screen, and without the help of any color-changing cursor you'd have to click on the various things to access different locations and features (and I am not just talking about adventure games here). Those things were true in the early '90s and earlier, and I'll agree that the interfaces often do come across as poorly designed.
However, by the mid '90s that had changed, and clearly labeled menu buttons, popup help, etc. had become the standard. That stuff wasn't there forever. Win95 games usually do not do those things.
Also, the poorly designed menus were not why the the games were complex, though. They were complex because the part of the game that actually matters -- the gameplay, not the interface -- was usually even deeper and even more complex than that interface. A great game is worth a mediocre interface if it's a great game. Who cares if it takes an hour to get used to the interface if you then get dozens or more hours of gameplay out of the game? And remember, PC games always gave the player lots of content, unlike most console games. :)
Also, the manuals were usually great, describing every detail of the game interface in depth. PC gamers read the manual first if they wanted to actually be able to play the game -- and that's how it should be. Having the manual be worthwhile. :)
I believe that the longest manual I have is SimEarth's... it's like 250 pages long, and describes every single menu and system in that very complicated, yet brilliant, game in great detail. Awesome, awesome stuff.
Quote:[i]It's garbage.[i/] I'm sorry you're a fan of it, there's a very particular reason PC gaming has never taken off while console gaming has flourished: The game's are shit.
... And here's one more example of why you're either not being serious or aren't reading a single word I'm saying. Or both. Go back and read what I've written, then come have an actual discussion. There's no point talking to someone ignoring every word you say.
I mean, I think I just posted a quite extensive amount of proof of how popular and successful PC gaming was for many years, how it was more popular than console gaming in all three main gaming regions at some point or another,and how it still is that popular in some places. If that's not enough for you, absolutely nothing ever will be.