The Metroid Zero Mission Countdown Thread

[A Black Falcon]

Confusing, do directions. Easy to get lost in Metroid 1 and easier to forget (even after a short amount of time) where you saw some enterance your latest powerup can get past...

[OB1]

Not if you play it in one week instead of playing half an hour every five months like you seem to do.




and 1 DAY LEFT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


WOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

[A Black Falcon]

I'm talking about Metroid 1! Metroid 1! That game was BUILT confusing! And these days that game mechanic just doesn't hold up that well.

[OB1]

Yes, the part where you said "Metroid 1" made that clear. It's pretty confusing, but nothing that should take more than a week of somewhat regular playing to beat.

[A Black Falcon]

I need a MAP! :)

[OB1]

Cry me a river why don't you.

[A Black Falcon]

I like maps. I like games to have maps in them. Maps make navigating much easier. Maps are good. I'd choose a (decent) map over directions telling me where to go (an arrow, a railed path, whatever), actually, if I had to choose one.

I bet if I'd had a NES and this game I would have tried to draw one...

[OB1]

[Great Rumbler]

:D

[A Black Falcon]

... it is kind of funny... :)

[OB1]

METROID HAS SHIPPED!!!!!! WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Great Rumbler]

Woo!

[OB1]

But I won't be able to get it until tomorrow...

[Weltall]

-2,216 days! WOOO

[Great Rumbler]

Old thread is OOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLLDDDDDDDDDDD

[Weltall]

NOT COMPARED TO THE UNIVERSE

WHAT NOW

[Great Rumbler]

[Weltall]

damn you and your insurmountable counter-arguments!

[A Black Falcon]

That is a pretty cool gif, isn't it.

[EdenMaster]

OK, I must know.

ABF.

Please.

Please tell me you've moved up from 800x600?

[A Black Falcon]

I've been using 1024x768 ever since I got my (still pretty good) computer in Feb. 2007.

I didn't get a new monitor with the computer though, so I do still have the same 17" Dell CRT as before... I don't mind though, I'm not a LCD monitor fan and couldn't have afforded one of the giant screen displays anyway. If the choice is between a 17" CRT and a 17" standard LCD or something, I'll choose the CRT every time.

So yeah, in games that support it I usually run them in 1280x960 or 1280x1024, two of the highest resolutions that this monitor supports (it does support 1600x1200, but only at 60hz which is unusable in Windows due to the horrible flicker (I use it at 1024x768, 85 or 100hz), so because of that I don't use that in games either generally).

[EdenMaster]

I didn't get a new monitor with the computer though, so I do still have the same 17" Dell CRT as before... I don't mind though, I'm not a LCD monitor fan and couldn't have afforded one of the giant screen displays anyway. If the choice is between a 17" CRT and a 17" standard LCD or something, I'll choose the CRT every time.

I...I just...have no words.

[A Black Falcon]

CRTs are better than LCDs of the same size, though. There's no question about that.

[Great Rumbler]

The only real advantage of a CRT is that you don't have to deal with native res. Other than that, they're big, bulky, and a waste of space.

I went LCD about two years ago and I haven't considered going back even once.

[A Black Falcon]

"Native res" is a huge, and very annoying, problem. Because of that anything designed for 640x480 or less in particular will look MUCH, MUCH better on a CRT than ANY kind of LCD -- and a lot of the PC games I play are running at that resolution! (and for DOS games, only not less because of stupid NVidia Vista drivers that don't allow you to use any resolution below 640x480 for absolutely no good reason)

And I don't care that the monitor is bigger. So? It doesn't matter...

[Great Rumbler]

Native res is an issue, but so it trying to lug around a three hundred pound brick. I've taken my computer to Quakecon twice, something I'd probably never be able to do with a CRT monitor.

[Dark Jaguar]

ABF, native resolution is fine so long as whatever resolution you use is a multiple of, or divisible by, that native resolution. Certain modern moniters have such high native resolutions that 640x480 is easily divisible into it, and by extension all lower resolutions which 640x480 is a multiple of. The other issue is, of course, proper aspect ratio, but most modern moniters can properly switch to a 4:8 ratio mode when needed. Keep in mind that some especially old programs are designed for very unusual aspect ratios for old resolutions where pixels were far "taller" than "wide".

Certain resolutions still don't properly work, but certain aspect ratio solutions can solve this simply by adding or subtracting the needed lines to eliminate odd "native resolution" effects, minimally noticed with small black bars on the top and bottom of the screen.

The sizes of modern screens over, your abomination, more than make up for this. You can always just keep that old thing around for the rare occasion of playing those games. You'll never find a better solution than this. No one makes CRTs any more.

[Weltall]

I've been using 1024x768 ever since I got my (still pretty good) computer in Feb. 2007.

About goddamn time you caught up to 1998.

*runs 1680x1050*

CRTs suck, unless you have a fetish for flicker headaches and crappy resolutions.

[A Black Falcon]

Flicker problems? At 85 or 100hz, what flicker problems? There are none. :)

If you're running 60hz or something, sure, but at higher frequencies, no way.

ABF, native resolution is fine so long as whatever resolution you use is a multiple of, or divisible by, that native resolution. Certain modern moniters have such high native resolutions that 640x480 is easily divisible into it, and by extension all lower resolutions which 640x480 is a multiple of. The other issue is, of course, proper aspect ratio, but most modern moniters can properly switch to a 4:8 ratio mode when needed. Keep in mind that some especially old programs are designed for very unusual aspect ratios for old resolutions where pixels were far "taller" than "wide".

Certain resolutions still don't properly work, but certain aspect ratio solutions can solve this simply by adding or subtracting the needed lines to eliminate odd "native resolution" effects, minimally noticed with small black bars on the top and bottom of the screen.

The sizes of modern screens over, your abomination, more than make up for this. You can always just keep that old thing around for the rare occasion of playing those games. You'll never find a better solution than this. No one makes CRTs any more.

Wait... you actually think that those are comparable? Seriously?

No. Scaled-up images on LCD displays are NOT going to look anywhere near as good as the real thing on a CRT monitor. I've seen enough proof of that myself to know this for a fact. Sure, with a good enough monitor things can look tolerable, but tolerable and right are not the same thing. I've seen Starcraft running on large LCDs... it looks awful compared to how the game looks on my CRT!

Keep in mind that some especially old programs are designed for very unusual aspect ratios for old resolutions where pixels were far "taller" than "wide".

And it relies on the monitor's auto-resizing abilities to keep things correctly shaped. That's possible on a CRT, built-in in fact. But on an LCD? Forget it...

Certain resolutions still don't properly work, but certain aspect ratio solutions can solve this simply by adding or subtracting the needed lines to eliminate odd "native resolution" effects, minimally noticed with small black bars on the top and bottom of the screen.

Or you could just use a better monitor for games like those. The picture will look better anyway, and it's much less of a hassle.

[Great Rumbler]

Considering that ABF only plays games pre-Y2K anyway, it's probably best that he stick with a CRT. For consistency's sake.

[lazyfatbum]

As someone who has worked with graphics engineers and studios who need the best image reproduction possible, CRT's are the only option. They provide the best black levels, best contrast ratios, best color reproduction and over all best picture quality. It's funny, but LCD's and plasma's actually haven't caught up to direct-view (tube) television picture quality. If you've ever seen 1080p on a CRT 30"+ then you know exactly what I mean.

That flicker is only caused because the graphics card or monitor is set on the wrong refresh rate.

[A Black Falcon]

Considering that ABF only plays games pre-Y2K anyway, it's probably best that he stick with a CRT. For consistency's sake.

Yeah, I know, I've only played like 1100 hours of circa-2004/05 Guild Wars since it came out... and 2002's Warcraft III is only like probably my most played game ever... etc...

I know I don't have many PC games from the past three or four years or so, or didn't until all those sales online last year, but still...

Since those sales on D2D and Steam last year and a few boxed pickups, I picked up Drakensang, NWN2: Storm of Zehir (got original NWN2 and MotB in '07), Puzzle Quest: Galactrix (boxed), Psychonauts, Outrun 2006, Shattered Horizon, Mirror's Edge, Jade Empire, Mass Effect, World in Conflict Gold, Supreme Commander Gold, and a few more...

I just don't think that playing older games is any less valid -- particularly when they're older games I've never played before or haven't played that much before, as is true with most of the games in this thread!

Still though, I am currently playing Knights in the Nightmare on my DS, and it's a stunningly amazing game, certainly the best game I've played so far that was released in 2009. Exceptional, exceptional stuff.

As someone who has worked with graphics engineers and studios who need the best image reproduction possible, CRT's are the only option. They provide the best black levels, best contrast ratios, best color reproduction and over all best picture quality. It's funny, but LCD's and plasma's actually haven't caught up to direct-view (tube) television picture quality. If you've ever seen 1080p on a CRT 30"+ then you know exactly what I mean.

I'm obviously not someone who cares THAT much about graphics, but I have used this computer with an LCD before -- a nothing-special 17" one -- and I definitely noticed the problems, such as the lack of a real black, the ghosting, the lack of options to really change the screen shape (fix that odd resolution issue where there's a giant black space at the bottom of the screen by just moving over the screen, resizing it, and shaping it to fit! Oh wait, you can't do that in an LCD! Too bad, you're stuck!). It did not exactly make me want an LCD monitor, to say the least. :) LCDs are smaller, but if you directly compare image quality on an LCD to a CRT, the CRT does clearly look better, due to the reasons you explain there.

As I said, the only thing I like about LCDs are that those giant ones are huge... I've known some people at school over the past few years who had large LCD monitors for their PCs. Older games like Starcraft looked horrible on them, but newer stuff like World in Conflict or SupCom look awesome...

It would definitely take some time to get used to the widescreen format, and I'm definitely not convinced that widescreen is better than standard 4:3 for PC games (I don't really think it is, I think), but I'm sure I probably would eventually.

So yeah, ideally I'd have one of each, for each kind of game. Unfortunately those large monitors are pretty expensive, so for now it's not an option.

[Great Rumbler]

Yeah, I know, I've only played like 1100 hours of circa-2004/05 Guild Wars since it came out.

I don't think I could stand to play a single game for the equivalent of 45 days. The most I managed was about 150-200 hours for the Morrowind, and a bit less than that for Oblivion, and I really have no desire to ever revisit either of those titles without a few gigabytes of mods.

I played Guild Wars for a few hours and that's probably all I'll ever play of it.

[A Black Falcon]

You've never gotten into a multiplayer PC game then, have you. Starcraft and Warcraft III are for sure by a huge margin my most played games ever, and Guild Wars is third... multiplayer online games on the PC are playable for longer than any other kind of game because of the near-infinite variety of the great multiplayer games.

But yeah, when I'm playing hundreds of hours of Guild Wars, I'm not playing other things. And that is why MMOs have played a role in destroying the variety of PC gaming... all those hours are going into single games instead of a wide variety of titles. It's partially good and partially bad, but GW is such an amazing, amazing game... it's definitely one of the best games ever (and not really an MMO, but it's close of course).

I'm not sure what would be next, but it could be Netstorm or something for all I know (Netstorm wouldn't be a bad guess for fourth, but I'm not sure if it's next or not because it'd be way behind the top three...). Most-played console game is probably still San Francisco Rush 2049, at only like 150-200 hours played, to make a rough estimate that may be too high or too low.

[Great Rumbler]

I've played, and absolutely loved, Team Fortress 2 and the two Left 4 Deads, but I wouldn't want to play them for 45 days.

but GW is such an amazing, amazing game... it's definitely one of the best games ever (and not really an MMO, but it's close of course).

It looked like every other MMO out there, only with the first M for 95% of the game. You pick up a quest to fight some monsters and then you fight monsters. Then you pick up a quest to fight monsters and the you fight monsters. It has some nice locations, but not something I'd ever consider putting all that much time into.

I'd rather spread my time across a variety of games anyway, no matter how good the ones I play might be.

[A Black Falcon]

... But it's not massive. All areas are instanced. That's why it's not an MMO. It's also part of why I love it -- while you're exploring with your heroes and henchmen it's essentially a single player game with online chat, because no one else is out there with you. You'll only see other people in the towns or if you do co-op things like missions with other people, or get into PvP.

The game also does not have the same kinds of required grind as most MMOs do. There is grind, but it's almost entirely optional. This is something I really, really like about the game...


As for the amount of time, 45 days spread over a period of years... should have played it more, really. There's still so much for me to do in that game... it may not have a monthly fee or as much grind as most MMOs, but there's still a huge, huge amount of stuff in that game. It's strategic, with the many skills and having to choose eight and only eight to have with you, fast-paced, beautiful looking, and fun for hours on end.

[Great Rumbler]

There's a lot of really great games out there, I don't want to miss them because I play one or two for thousands of hours.

[A Black Falcon]

There's a lot of really great games out there, I don't want to miss them because I play one or two for thousands of hours.

PC gaming has always been about games with longer lifespans than console games, on average, really. Between FPSes, RTSes, and MMOs, PC gaming in the past 15 years has been dominated by games that people can play indefinitely... and many of them still are, which is as I said part of why there isn't as much variety of PC games anymore. But really, the idea of playing one great game a whole lot instead of others seems perfectly reasonable to me, if it's that good you don't really care about what you're missing...

I mean, think of all the people still playing Counterstrike, the original Starcraft, etc. I doubt that they mind much that they're missing newer games. :)

[Great Rumbler]

I played a demo for Just Cause 2 today. It's pretty much awesome, so I'm really glad that I'm not spending all my time/money getting old stuff that I might think about playing once twice in my lifespan but then just forget as it goes into a huge pile in the corner.

So, yeah, Just Cause 2, it's coming out pretty soon, by the way.

[A Black Falcon]

Don't know anything about it. *looks it up* Eh, doesn't look that interesting... might be okay, but nothing that I'd consider anything near a must-play.

I could have gotten Mercenaries (1 or 2, I forget, probably both at different times) a few time for a few bucks, but passed. Doesn't look like something I'd play for long. Giant-open-world isn't really my thing... look at GTA or TES. The main game stories aren't that amazing, but "just wander around and do anything" doesn't hold my interest for long enough to get me to actually stick with the games.

[Great Rumbler]

In Just Cause 2 I found a helicopter on the ground, got in it, flew around, got shot down by another helicopter, hijacked it from the ground with my grappling hook, and then shot down a third helicopter that had been sent out to take me down. Also, I grappled to the top of this tower and then blew up a gas station with a grenade launcher. In another spot, I found a military outpost guarded by a boss character. I killed him and then stole a tank, which I used to blast everything in sight with.

It's pretty awesome.

[A Black Falcon]

Similarly, third-person behind-the-character games generally are not my thing. I've played a few here and there, but it's just not a kind of game that I play often, or that usually interest me.

I do like Enclave (Xbox/PC) and Draconis (Dreamcast), because those are medieval hack-and-slash games, and I do like beat 'em ups and medieval-themed games. I also thought Oni for the PC was pretty good (mostly for the beat 'em up gameplay, though,the gun side was boring), but other than that... I have a couple of Tomb Raider games, never got more than a level or two into them. I've played an hour or something of Gears of War 2, didn't exactly interest me. That's as much console FPS as third-person game though, gameplay-wise, so that shouldn't be too surprising. :)

As for GTA, I have GTA3 for PS2, but have never stuck with it at all... it's entertaining for a little bit (driving around causing chaos and maybe occasionally doing the missions), but quickly gets old and I drop it and almost never go back. That pulls the camera back more though, so it's not really in this category... it applies more in the "open-world games" thing I mentioned in my last post.

I'd much rather play a whole lot of other kinds of games than either of the above kinds of games. It's kind of too bad that they're the most popular things right now, along with FPSes, another one that would definitely go in that 'not THAT interested' category along with the two of them.