/vr/ - Retro Games

>>11204191
I couldn't care less about the "Pro" aspect of it, it's just good to have a controller that can have both the Nintendo/Sony diamond layout, and a SEGA arcade styled layout, all on the same pad. it's just ideal and I wish it was more common. In terms of "official" controller the N64 is the one that almost got it perfect, the only one that I'd say even attempted this concept and did it well.

>>11064418
Indeed, even Nintendo had a decent design with N64, where the C buttons acted as the diamond, while A and B completed the arcade styled rows. I wish this had become a standard, since having options is always nice and for stuff like fighters and beat 'em ups, it just feels right to have that.

>>11064424
Fair, I even admitted that the diamond layout is standard over this one because it's better for a majority of titles, but this issue isn't that big, of course having access to the most buttons at any point in time is ideal, but if we only cared about that then all controllers would have those back buttons like a few "Pro" controllers do, it'd be a standard, but it isn't, because comfort and feel are also key and these controllers excel at that, especially for feeling like it's bringing the arcade to the home. Also, while not everyone does it, you can use a claw grip to use all of the buttons.

>>11054917
I don't think you get what I mean and, at least to me, you're taking this a bit too seriously, it's just a matter of me cheating on purpose because I'd have more fun doing so than not doing it, or just giving up... are codes and save states cheating? I mean, yes, of course... is my playthrough legit? I don't think so... should we care about that over our fun? Not really... it can improve some titles.

I think it all comes down to the fact that it's just video games, do I think it's ideal to clarify if you cheated when discussing something? Yes, as it's quite a different experience, but still, whatever...

>>11052418
I've always preferred the PS1, but when I turned paranoid over emulation and ROMs being taken down and becoming harder to find... I started to appreciate it a lot more, the fact that it used the old cartridges instead of the new CDs from that time might've been a bad call then... but now I'll easily download the full library for around 10GB, while a single PS1 ROM can take 500MG really...

It's nice, and the library's excellent, I just wish it had gotten more 3rd party support, I guess that was the price they had to pay for not using CDs afterall. Not dealing with load times is nice too.

>>11044945
That's not the N64 though.

>>10757184
If we consider there are:

2D titles where symmetrical is best.
1st person 3D titles where symmetrical is best.
3rd person 3D titles where asymmetrical is best.

DualShock excels at 2 and fails at 1.
N64 only succeeds in 2D and it barely has any.

>>10627738
I felt that the controller with the best layout is the N64, it's the only one that had both layouts which I find to be the best, the diamond one we often associate with SNES and PS1 the most, but also the 6-Button layout we often associate with SEGA thanks to the Genesis and Saturn, on N64 it had a diamond, with a couple more buttons there to make it a 6-button layout if needed, I love this.

At this point it feels like we get a "N64 is underrated and was actually better than the PS1" or "Nintendo was always better than Sony even during the 90's and early 2000's" thread every week by N64 fans that just can't let go. N64 was an excellent home console and Nintendo has always been good at that, but Sony absolutely dominated the 5th and 6th home console generations, it's pretty hard to deny that, while N64 had a few titles which are seen as the greatest of all time, it also felt pretty lacking in many genres, while PlayStation had some of the best franchises ever in every single genre one could ask for, both were good in their own way, but it's easy to see why PlayStation was more appealing to most back then, just like how Nintendo is dominating the current one with the Switch by quite a lot and will probably surpass the PS2 in sales pretty soon, by making something that's simply more attractive to the consumer than its competitors... it's pointless to discuss who won or whatever, especially for generations that have already ended, just emulate all of them and play what you enjoy like a normal person, my friends, it's more fun that way.

ITT: Add a single feature or make a single change that would drastically improve the quality of a video game of your choice.

I'll start with a few of mine...

1. TECMO World Cup Soccer (NES): A button that switches which player you're controlling in defence. When you lose the ball, it's common for AI defenders to attempt a tackle in a completely wrong manner, while you're stuck with a player just chasing the opponent with the ball, being able to control a defender in a better position is ideal.

2. Yu-Gi-Oh! Duel Monsters (GB) & Yu-Gi-Oh! Dark Duel Stories (GBC): I'd say both of these have an issue that plagues most of the franchise, and that is if you're going for something like 100% completion, or simply going after a few specific cards... the drop rates are a pain. A store where you can buy specific cards for some currency is best.

3. Spider-Man vs. The Kingpin (MS/GG) & Spider-Man/X-men in Arcade's Revenge (MD/SNES): A couple of Marvel adaptations here, mostly focused on Spider-Man, and both have the same issue, getting sent back the whole way after dying too much, which you will. An actual lives system in the former, and unlimited continues in the latter.

Well, those are just some changes I'd make. I know many would too, for tons of other video games, so voice them here, anons!

I believe we've all been there before, we've played a video game and either loved it and wanted more of it, or simply felt it was serviceable, but with untapped potential to be better. Still, all of these reactions resulted in the same desire, that of a sequel who improved upon that which we had played, that took full potential of everything that was good while trimming off everything that held back our experiences overall. However, eventually you saw a sequel get announced, or simply found out that it already existed when looking it up, which lead you to playing it... and it failed completely.

A couple of examples that really hit me might be somewhat obscure, the 1st one is Amazing Spider-Man 2 for the GameBoy, I thought the original wasn't anything special, but fun for what it was and had potential to be improved upon, and then the sequel messed everything up, it controls worse and levels are confusing, it even has Carnage on the cover even though you don't really fight him, you just avoid him when he shows up. However, my 2nd disappointment was much worse, Reshef of Destruction, I quite like Sacred Cards on GBA, but the sequel is a slog, a grindfest, overly punishing.

What hurts the most is that a sequel being superior, or at least on the same level as what came before it, should be obvious, how can you actively make a foundation that was already set simply get worse? You have to actively try to mess it up, and I don't understand how it happens, but it does, quite often actually, I can think of more examples but those were the ones that baffled me the most due to how much worse they felt compared to what came before it, though I consider all sequels that are inferior to their predecessors to be disappointing in a way. What were your disappointing sequels?

I don't recall what's the oldest video game which had this idea of finishing it any% or 100% really, but it's something which has been around for quite some time, and it only got more common as video games kept increasing in scope over the years, with new and more powerful hardware. One of the earliest examples I can recall is Sonic The Hedgehog, how Dr. Eggman/Robotnik would mock you by the end if you didn't get the Chaos Emeralds, so by the 16-Bit era that was already a thing, after that I recall Crash Bandicoot in the 32-Bit/64-Bit era, with its infamous 100% completion, which to most was too tough to pull off.

Nowadays 100% completion seems to be more popular of a concept than ever before, with things like Achievements/Trophies being widespread in modern releases, and to be honest that's one of the things that makes me prefer retro over what's coming out today, I'm somewhat of an completionist, so when I play something new, I just know that it might take me weeks to finish it in the way I prefer, while with retro, anything before saving became common, with thing like the PS1's Memory Cards especially, should take no more than a few hours to finish 100% when you know what to do, it's a more condensed experience.

Still, that's just my personal approach, whenever I play something, I know that I not only want to get to the end, I want to have at least one playthrough where I get everything, and on the hardest setting too, if what I'm playing has difficulty settings at all, I'd say that it's something I'd like to change honestly, since it ruins some experiences for me. I'd like to hear about what everyone's approaches here are, how do you feel about the concept of 100% completion? Is it something you always go after or only selectively? Do you keep pushing even if you're disliking the experience or do you force yourself to pull it off regardless?

>>8577280
I believe that both control and level design are key to making something truly special, you need both to be high quality, however I prefer something with mediocre controls and good level design than something with good controls and mediocre level design, but maybe that's just me.