/vr/ - Retro Games

>>9041356
More like it'd be pretty Grimm

>>7728856
They didn't need one, Clayfighters was like putty in its hands.

>>4884749
I bet you think you're being irregular

be a real PAL and get a new SNES

you seem triggered

>>4049453
this game is objectively a masterpiece.

>>3869751
>>3869761
Only when he does his Split Punch.

I created a checklist to help me decide if a game is worth playing. A game doesn't need to get a yes for everything on the list, but it sure helps. It's surprising what games actually suck when I've reviewed games like this, but I'm glad I analyzed them.

Anyway, I'm looking for feedback. What could be done to improve this list? Should I even use a checklist to determine if I should bother with a game? I feel like I should avoid games that aren't challenging (most modern games) because they don't stand the test of time, and I feel like I've wasted my money. And I HATE that feeling.

>What were the opportunities and constraints durings its development?
>What words and images do you associate this game with?
>What kind of claims does this game make about itself?

>Do you know WHAT to do?
>Do you know HOW to play?
>Does it give you feedback about your performance?
>Does it have a fail state? If not, it probably sucks.
>Before the challenge, can you prepare?
>Can you succeed if you prepare in different ways?
>Does it REQUIRE you use more than one action?
>Do you have to analyze how actions work and behave?
>Do you have to discriminate when and how you use an action?
>Does the play environment affect the challenge?
>Does it have multiple types of challenges?
>Does anything distract from the core challenge?

>Does it acknowledge influence over your thought patterns?
>Did the game make good on what it claimed to be?
>What could refine this game?

>>3711785
It's pretty ambitious.