/vr/ - Retro Games

id like to play more of them. i used to rent super ghouls n ghosts often as a kid, despite it being so hard. i also got the gba version when it came out. ive never actually beaten it because running through the game twice is retarded and not something i enjoy. the only other one ive played is nes ghosts n goblins, which filtered the fuck out of me. watching footage of the arcade games just looks unreal how hard they are.

>>9882108
play the original arcade game, not the shitty nes port

>>9882108
Obviously none of it approaches the predatory microtransactions of today, but some arcade games were just straight up ball busting quarter fiends it’s honestly stupid in retrospect

>>9882097
Cool pic.

here

>>9882287

>>9882293

>>9882303

Yeh, it's the best action platformer series to ever exist. Airtight design with no fluff. Learn the patterns and you'll be rewarded, the origin of that style. Take a key for coming in. Perfect series. Avoid the console ports, although I'll always have a soft spot for the MD version and the Capcom Generations 2 collection.
Also: All arcade games loop so I have no idea why zoomers get so upset about there being multiple runs. It's like complaining about Tetris getting faster (and more devious) as you progress...no shit. There's more to games than seeing an arbitrary staff roll. That special ending was just a bonus for advanced players.

>>9882303
Based.

>>9882293
>>9882303
Fuck. That's cool.

>>9882303
This shit is fucking magnificent.

>>9882303
>>9883329
>>9883378
>>9883393
This legitimately gave me the shivers. When you know how hard the game is, it feels like truly going into the bowels of hell for your girl.

I've only played the newer one (resurrection), but it's absolutely amazing. Are the others about as good/difficult as legend mode?

>>9883445
Daimakaimura is the absolute best it gets for arcade platformers.

played Maximo 1 'because I thought there'd be more fanservice. Fan-service was minimal, and it was really difficult

As a kid I would intentionally get hit so I could see the guy in his underwear

>>9883476
>maximo
???

>>9882097
anyone here played the wonder spawn game, or the ghosts and demons game?

>>9883547
Pretty sure it was meant to be a spiritual successor for GnG.

One of my favorite series, they never get old. I replay them still.

I've 1CCed many of them and did a no death run too.

>>9883554
wonder swan game is pretty janky and limited but kinda fun just to try out. The fan remake is based off it and far far better its called ghosts n demons. Ghosts n demons is really damn good.

art

>>9882097
I love this series, too. I also suck at most of them, but I do pretty well at super gng and arcade/genesis ghouls n ghosts. If you haven't yet, try out the first Maximo game, OP. Way more balanced, but with all the same character and charm and a great challenge.

uhh gng bros where to get this hack
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEm_EL9THfg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEm_EL9THfg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEm_EL9THfg

>>9883445
I actually find resurrection so hard it's often not fun, though it looks cool and feels good to play. Play super gng or basically any version of ghouls n ghosts, they're way more playable and fun in my opinion.

>>9883732
>custom player sprites
>custom lance projectile
Pretty fucking neat.

>>9882303
I like how you can tell the model they referenced for that scene was clearly Japanese. That's not a jab, I just think it's neat.

If I was ever going to buckle down and actually commit to beating one of these games, which one should it be?

either the first or the second, pick which ever grabs you more.
play the arcade versions though.

>>9883846
>>9882108

Well the first one is actually the worse. They got better as it went along. Less loses due to what seems like situtions you have no reponse for, cool environments. And yeah if a game has an NES port, the port is the inferior version.
SNES one is the most beatable. PSP and PC one seem to be the best games overall and come with difficulty settings.

The second arcade game looks very strong but 1ccing that is not appropriate for someone who hasn't done 1ccs before. Its hard even for them.

>>9883905
>first one is the worst
only the NES port is shitty, the arcade original GNG1 is fantastic and one of the best platformers around

>The second arcade game looks very strong but 1ccing that is not appropriate for someone who hasn't done 1ccs before. Its hard even for them.

that was one of my first 1ccs, yes its hard for new players but very doable, and actually not too bad once you play the game a couple weeks consistently.


>>9883846
Remember beating means 1cc since these are arcade games and arcade style. spamming continues/credits will water down your experience.
Another thing to note is that these games are way more fun and intended to be played fast, meaning you should keep moving have momentum. But that comes with practice and memorizing a route.

I'd go with Ghouls n Ghosts, that's the second game. The arcade version, or one of the ports is fine. Sega Genny port is actually pretty faithful in terms of gameplay but inferior sound and graphics

I went ghouls n ghosts arcade (gng2) then ghosts n goblins arcade (gng1) then super ghouls n ghosts snes (gng3)

>>9883905
>>9883919
for example here is one of my first 1ccs, I noted that it took me about 3 weeks of playing consistently to get, which I think is normal for new players?

GNG2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eh2LzJiK2DY

GNG1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35OMeKi0qu4

>>9883919
>couple weeks consistently.
This is a key point. Plunging coin after coin wasn't the only thing that happened with arcade machines. Often, maybe much more often, guys would play a game a couple of times most days. You get pretty good after only a couple of weeks. Lots of kids would play golden axe a couple of times on luch or after school and it does not take long to get good at that game, even to the point of 1cc.

>>9882097
that pic is my new desktop wallpaper
thanks sir

>>9884020
yep consistency is key because you have to store a lot of info in your long term memory, so it takes some time to develop that when you're starting out

better players can take less time obviously.

But these games take lots of trial and error, unlike many modern games where beating them is expected in a few tries

not to mention the concept of 1cc is foreign to modern zoomers

>the 1cc meme
do people actually do this? i have to imagine most people are just using save states at the beginning of each level and then convincing themselves they did it since they technically 1cc'd each level

>>9883924
Is this 3 weeks playing it without save stating or using information you found online? Cuz if it is that's a hell of an accomplishment.

>>9883547
>>9883698
https://youtu.be/lrn8veLOWgY

>>9884334
If you can beat every level without trouble you can beat the game without trouble. If you could do the thing you are saying you should be able 1cc it in an hour or less. Although not many people play the way you describe in the first place. git good

>>9883924
Based. Daimakaimura is a doable 1cc, pretty fun to learn.

>>9883924
>Check other vids
>8 loop Salamander
Wut da fuck lol I can't even do the first one

>>9884334
Yeah, its pretty retarded to think 1cc is the only way to beat arcade games. Maybe its a more valid point for stuff like shmups where popping in another coin just leaves you right where you were, but games like GnG send you back to the last checkpoint anyways.

>>9883547
why do you think he had the heart boxers?

>>9884334
lol whats incomprehensible about it?
you know how zoomers cream their panties over twitch speedtrannies running through a game quickly?
its that, but for arcade boomers.
watching people 1cc arcade games was, for one, what you HAD to do since you werent playing until they were done. but its also where youd learn a ton of tricks you could use the next time YOU got a turn

also in addition to being the arcade "medal of honor", you as a player also had a vested interest in gitting gud
as a scrub, you could go to the arcade with a sack of $20 in quarters up against a cab like GnGs, and be broke in under an hour. EASILY
once you got gud, you could go to that same cab with the quarter you found on the floor at lunch, and play for 2 or 3 times that

>>9882097
Did Arthur ever get to bone the princess?

>>9885039
Actually Arthur has strawberries on his shorts, Maximo is the one with hearts.
I had a period in my life where my autism for this series was huge so I wound up absorbing a lot of unnecessary info like this.

>>9883732
>replacing noble Arthur with a harlot
Scorn and defiance!

>>9883554
Have the wonderswan game, it's kinda slow compared to the other GnG games.

>>9884942
>but games like GnG send you back to the last checkpoint anyways.
A game over is still a game over, which means the game beat you before you beat it.
Returning to a checkpoint upon death doesn't mean your 12 credit clear is a legit win lol

>>9887008
I could just as easily say your 1cc isn't worth shit if you didn't play a perfect game and max out your hi-score.

>>9887051
t. never been to an arcade

>>9887504
I've been to arcades, though only shit ones that don't keep the machines on to retain hi-scores.
What matter most in arcade games is your score, if someone's score is higher than yours, they're better than you, plain and simple. Beating an arcade game, even 1cc isn't that impressive if you can still get mopped in the score department, that's why the primary punishment for putting in another credit is losing your score.

>>9887008
imagine caring this much about a children's toy from 35 years ago

>>9886780
Supposedly they got married in one of the later games? I dunno, but the official reason arthur was semi-nude in the original was because the princess was actually treating his wounds, not because they were getting it on. I kinda like that. Arthur is going the entire game not even at full capacity and he's STILL beating the shit out of the forces of hell. Probably explains why he dies in one hit without the armor, and why the armor is so flimsy to begin with.
If I'm reading Ghouls n' Ghosts right, then Arthur also spent 3 years away from the princess just to learn magic and hid all of the power-up treasures away himself just to prepare in case they ever got invaded again.
What a fucking guy. Always prepared.
Doesn't explain why he had to pick between aiming or double-jumping between his 16-bit games though. Should have just had both in Super.

>>9882097
>>9882303
>>9883818
Guinevere/Prin-Prin seems to be one of those characters that always looks hot no matter who draws her.

>>9882293
BEST ONE

>>9882442
You must be a special kind of stupid. It's not the same when you finish the game and start a new run, and when the game forces you to play it twice to actually finish it (it doesn't count as you finishing the game if you don't see the real ending).

>>9888169
t. never been to an arcade
people getting exposed here. let me guess. you also think you cant play puyo puyo without seeing some arbitrary ending.

>>9887621
high scores have also been based on consecutive loops. if you can 8 loop salamander, youre getting on the board. not to mention the benefit to only putting in money for a single play. theres a mark of pride and accomplishment. again, you seem civil, so i wont dig into you. but arcade culture was seeing those superplayers literally 1cc these games back in the day. everyone gathered around to see someone in action. it was a genuine accomplishment and with no high speed videos, this was your gateway into genuine play. you were either the guy who could do it on a coin or two, or the person bringing 30 tickets to the sunset riders machine. and no one gave a shit about the latter.

>>9887051
beating the game without gaming over is the default way to win or beat the game. Some arcade games didn't even let you continue but you would get a hard game over and forced to start again, no continues allowed.

That style wasnt conducive to practice though and would frustrate players, but it would hammer the point home: 1cc is how you ''beat'' the game.

>>9888319
Sure, its impressive to 1cc, its also impressive to beat home console games like Megaman or Castlevania without getting a game over.
My point is that 1cc isn't the only way to beat a game, its a self imposed challenge. If you want to do a dick measuring contest over it and act like it invalidates beating the game normally, because you did the harder challenge, then its only fair to say that your 1ccs are invalid because you didn't get a perfect score, which is much harder than 1cc, and more impressive.
Even if it was an arcade that would reset all the scores, only the people around you at the time would see your 1cc, but if you got the hi-score, your achievement is there for people to look at in awe for the rest of the day at the very least, longer if the machines don't get reset.

>>9889092
If the game allows you to continue, you are intended to do so. This argument is so stupid, literally the equivalent of soulsfag "you didn't beat the game if you used x, y, or z" retardation. Its all in the game and intended for players to use.
If the game lets you continue, you are allowed to spend more money to beat it. A 1cc isn't the true way to beat arcade games, it simply saves you money.

>>9888305
Ghosts N Goblins actually ends after the second loop. Its not an infinitely looping game, and therefore you need to beat both loops to actually beat the game.
Puyo Puyo is different because it has multiple endings, GNG only has the one ending, if you didn't reach it, you didn't beat it.

>>9887008
Nah with a game like GnG a 1cc isn't a requirement for being able to say you beat the game. That's like saying you didn't beat Doom if you ever died. It's just a stupid line of reasoning.

If you beat something like DoDonPachi or Metal Slug with 50 credits that's different because it means you suck and you brute forced it, it's like using savestates after every step and acting like you beat the game. But with GnG the checkpoint system makes it more like a regular game you'd see on home platforms. So long as you beat the game, you beat the game because you have to beat every section without taking a certain amount of damage. Even if you use 100 credits, you still have to beat every checkpoint in a single life to beat the game. That requires a certain level of mastery.

This is an insane level of autism you are displaying to be honest anyway. Because who gives a fuck how someone beat a game? Is it impressive to abuse save states or needing to use infinite credits to beat a game? No not really. But to say you have to be perfect to be able to say you beat the game is ridiculous. Imagine what you could achieve if you applied this level of dedication to something useful? Like a real life skill.

>1cc vegans are at it again
lol

>>9882303
Oh no, she has downs.

>>9890903
What are you talking about?

>>9890764
All that effort and you're still wrong.

>If you beat something like DoDonPachi or Metal Slug with 50 credits that's different because it means you suck and you brute forced it
Same applies for GnG, if someone can only clear it with 50 credits they are total trash at the game and understand very little and have a lot to improve to get to 1cc.

>That requires a certain level of mastery.
Lol 50cc GnG is no mastery at all.

Checkpoints in GnG respawn you with armor so you can tank an extra hit while trying to make it to the next checkpoint, plus you have unlimited retries per checkpoint if you allow credit feeding. The skill level to progress is extremely low, the execution is extremely low and the strats don't matter much.

Quit being autists look at Prin Prin's dick sucking lips

>>9890764
>Because who gives a fuck how someone beat a game?
me? I care if I beat the game lol
>Even if you use 100 credits, you still have to beat every checkpoint in a single life to beat the game
Even when I was doing 10cc runs it didn't feel like I beat the game or figured it out. Because though I *knew* what I had to do I couldn't pull it off mechanically, couldn't land jumps I wanted to, couldn't pull off boss fights, and it didn't feel satisfying getting game over after game over. Even 2cc and 3cc didn't feel like legit wins to me because I was using double or triple the lives and attempts

>>9891186
Someone beating the game with 50 credits doesn't make your 1cc any less of an achievement.

Nobody cares but you and ultra nerds though.

>>9891203
I'm talking about myself not what other people think is a legit win for them.

GnG series prides itself on its difficulty and people know it for that. That difficulty is in the context of a 1 credit run, and doing 2 loops not just 1.
that difficulty washes away when you're allowed unlimited retries and only do 1 loop as some do.

>>9891172
You get full armour every time you die too. Dying and getting a game over have exactly the same effect in GnG.

You're confusing mastery with completion. 1cc requires mastering the game, learning every moment of the game and precisely what to do. They're not the same thing. It's like saying someone hasn't done a marathon if they didn't do it in a certain time. If you got past the finish line, then you did it.

>>9891213
So is Super Ghouls 'N Ghosts a piss easy baby game because so long as you keep getting money bags you have unlimited continues?

>>9891213
You've got some random standard that only you have for what beating the game really is. For 99% of people on the planet, that's just getting to the end of the game.

You should put this autism towards something useful.

>>9891228

>>9891228
>Super Ghouls 'N Ghosts with unlimited retries is easy?
Yes that is very easy.

>>9891230
>People who don't play these games or arcade games don't understand your standards!
So?
People who do play GnG and do play arcade games understand.

>>9891254
Yes anon. Everyone who plays arcade games agree with you. Except for all the people here who play arcade games and disagree with you.

>>9891225
>You're confusing mastery with completion.
>1cc requires mastering the game, learning every moment of the game and precisely what to do.

No 1cc is a basic clear of the game, and not mastery at all. Mastery would be something like this:

Aquas GnG deathless, hardest difficulty, speed run 16mins
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AVEqPZHf3I&

Ben Shinobi GnG 29-ALL, 10 million points, 8 hour run
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77kPBpQnmw4

I've 1cced gng games dozens of times and am nowhere near mastery or anything like that^

>>9891213
>That difficulty is in the context of a 1 credit run
Absolutely not. The difficulty is in literally any context, 1cc, 100cc, 5000cc, GNG is brutal no matter what, the fact that it evem takes so many credits on average to get through one is a testament to how ball busting it is.
>that difficulty washes away when you're allowed unlimited retries and only do 1 loop as some do.
You have no idea what you're talking about. If infinite retries were all it took to make a game easy, tons of iconic oldschool games like Castlevania and shit wouldn't have the reputation they do for being really hard. Hell you technically have infinite retries for 1cc too, nothing stopping you from attempting 1cc as much as you want if you own the cabinet or are emulating, guess GNG is a baby easy game now right?
Fucking absolute retard.

>>9891254
>Yes that is very easy.
>People who do play GnG and do play arcade games understand.
lmao I'm convinced you play neither and are just a shitposting zoomer.

>>9887773
>the princess was actually treating his wounds
There is excellent.
Here is a still from Excalibur (1981) depicting that very thing. A direct influence?

>>9891263
It's really not a basic clear of the game. But you're right though, I didn't think of speedruns and score runs.

So I guess you suck then huh?

>>9891360
HERE is a still.

>>9891361
>But you're right though, I didn't think of speedruns and score runs.
Yeah people do deathless runs on hardest difficulty, speedruns, score runs, and then combine those etc...

To me a 1cc is just beating the game legit, you learned the basics and can do them. Afterwards there are harder challenges and mastery would

>>9891331
If a 50cc run is ''brutally hard'' for you then you just suck and have no idea how to play GnG games. Sorry to say but your opinions are very warped probably by your lack of play time.

> guess GNG is a baby easy game now right?
Have you even tried to play it properly? Instead of spamming continues mindlessly?

>>9891361
>But you're right though, I didn't think of speedruns and score runs.
Yeah people do deathless runs on hardest difficulty, speedruns, score runs, and then combine those etc...

To me a 1cc is just beating the game legit, you learned the basics and can do them. Afterwards there are harder challenges that ''mastery'' would involve.

>>9891331
If a 50cc run is ''brutally hard'' for you then you just suck and have no idea how to play GnG games. Sorry to say but your opinions are very warped probably by your lack of play time.

> guess GNG is a baby easy game now right?
Have you even tried to play it properly? Instead of spamming continues mindlessly?

I know you faggots have the rest. Post them.

>Credit Feeding GnG 1000CC is brutally hard
absolute state of /vr/

>>9891338
Not him but how is Super GnG not terribly easy given infinite continues? Just cause of check points?
Are there any particularly brutal checkpoints? No. Are there any brutal bosses? No. The strats are not hard to grasp. What makes these games hard is needing careful execution througout two loops, given limited resources, not retrying a checkpoint endlessly given infinite resources.


>>9891518
Not everyone here sucks there are a few legit 1cc players and probably a couple speedrunners too

>>9889937
>A 1cc isn't the true way to beat arcade games, it simply saves you money.
lol

>>9891416
Soulful miniatures. This sort of thing makes me want to play Warhammer or Mordhiem.

>>9891778
If that's not enough it was a series published in Famitsu. I'm really mad at myself for not downloading the set.

Post more GnG art, screenshots or your 1cc replays shitters

>>9889092
I thought everyone knew that getting a game over during a run means you lost, and the run is dead.

>>9891361
>So I guess you suck then huh?
Nah I'm probably intermediate. I got a deathless Ghouls 'n Ghosts 1cc recently. Next I want to do a deathless run of the first game, which is a bit harder imo.

>>9891797
yes

fat

Prin Prin best princess.
These fools that go on about muh Peach and muh Zelda don't know what's up. They don't understand what it is to be a knight; to embody the strength and courage on behelf of your love. To be her shield and sword.
Thier princessess are all 'hehe I'm going on my own adventure!' as though your courage and valour in thier name has no meaning or is a burder to her.
Fie upon these sour hearted fools that serve princesses of flippant whim and false hearts. Those torturous waifs that would use and discard a champion's fealty so cheaply.
Prin Prin does not lust after peril or death. We knights face death FOR her, so that she need not.
Nor does she wish to play tennis with Satan or go karting against Astaroth.
Now fellows I speak thus the Oath:
Never will I brave darkness for an unworthy wench
Nor step within a dragon's maw for a harlot
Nor once maintain faith wtih a doxy who sports with devils
Yet by blade will ring out for she who is pure of heart
Her, who'se hair entwines my soul and whose breath enflames my heart
To whom my valour is bonded
And for who my life will be spent
Even unto the last drop of blood
And the fading of my sight
That last name shall be gasped
Prin Prin
Prin Prin

>>9891890
>Nah I'm probably intermediate. I got a deathless Ghouls 'n Ghosts 1cc recently.
how?

>>9891980
just git gud and practice

>>9891412
The game doesn't magically change level design and enemies to become easier if you use another credit. The game will always be difficult, this isn't fucking RE4' adaptive difficulty.
>Have you even tried to play it properly? Instead of spamming continues mindlessly?
I've played them in the first place, which is more than you can say, its pretty evident you're some dumb zoomer who is here to just act tough and pretend like you're such a hardcore gamer with a typical soulsfag elitist mindset.

>>9891543
Super GNG is still hard as balls to play through despite being the easiest of the series.
>Are there any particularly brutal checkpoints?
Final level doesn't have a midway point and doesn't have enough money bags to give you infinite continues, so you're bound to run out.
>Are there any brutal bosses?
Yeah, in the 2nd loop when you're using the shitty bracelet against Satan in the last level.
>What makes these games hard is needing careful execution througout two loops, given limited resources, not retrying a checkpoint endlessly given infinite resources.
No, what makes these games hard is the level design and the enemy layout.
You don't look like some expert by calling these games easy, you just look like an absolute idiot.
>Not him
Doubtful

>>9891656
>you didn't beat the game if you didn't play by my made up rules!

>>9892126
No one said gng games are easy in themselves but spamming infinite continues sucks all the excitement and challenge from them. The loops are short and the strats are easy to learn in a couple days, the meat of their challenge comes in executing your strats for both loops given limited resources.

>I've played them in the first place, which is more than you can say, its pretty evident you're some dumb zoomer who is here to just act tough and pretend like you're such a hardcore gamer with a typical soulsfag elitist mindset.
If you actually put some time to learn GnG games I think your opinion would change.
I'm pretty sure I've put in more hours into them than you.

>>9891924
U like prin prin?

>>9892197
>No one said gng games are easy in themselves but spamming infinite continues sucks all the excitement and challenge from them
It doesn't suck anything out of them. They're still extremely difficult, they still feel rewarding to play, they don't lose anything by using continues. It doesn't matter how many times you die, you still get sent back to the checkpoint and have to overcome the challenges proper. This idea that the games magically become easy mode by having continues is absolute nonsense. These aren't like most shmups where using credits just puts you exactly where you died with no progress lost at all.
In a game where you can brute force it with credits, yes an abundance of credits makes it easy. But GNG doesn't care how many credits you feed into it, if you can't adapt to the challenge it won't hesitate to take every quarter you have, whether that be 50cc, 1000cc, 1000000cc, it does not matter, the game does not give you a free pass for spending money.
The fact that you cannot grasp this tells me you haven't played them, you sound like someone who has only touched arcade games with no checkpoint system, put a second credit in, and then had zero loss of progress and assumed all of them just put you right back in like nothing happened.

>>9892224
> They're still extremely difficult... they don't lose anything by using continues
>spamming continues doesn't lower the difficulty
What do you mean nothing is lost by using continues? lmao a substantial amount of difficulty is lost even when comparing 2cc to 1cc...
Are you saying a 20cc run is just as hard to attain as a 1cc run?

>, they still feel rewarding to play spamming continues
When I first started and was clueless yeah, spamming continues is still fun because it's a form of practice, trial and error, and a brand new player has low expectations.
But once you know how to play GnG games your standards and expectations change. If you are still in the beginner phase then spam away and figure out how the games work.

>The fact that you cannot grasp this tells me you haven't played them, you sound like someone who has only touched arcade games with no checkpoint system, put a second credit in, and then had zero loss of progress and assumed all of them just put you right back in like nothing happened.
I don't know why you keep repeating this and making it personal. I'm pretty sure I'm better at these games than you lol.

>>9892224
Strangely enough in the Capcom Arcade Stadium port of Daimakaimura I've died and actually been sent forward. I don't remember that in the Genesis version and I can't find much discussion on it. I changed the game setting to hardest and it didn't affect it either.

I've beat them all with save states btw. That's just as valid as 1cc.

>>9892398

>>9892258
>lmao a substantial amount of difficulty is lost even when comparing 2cc to 1cc...
>Are you saying a 20cc run is just as hard to attain as a 1cc run?
I'm saying that the game is hard no matter how many credits you put in. You still have to work to beat the game. A 1cc is nothing more than a self-imposed challenge for GNG. You can play any game without getting a single game over or even without dying, it doesn't make it the true way to play the game. Its just something you do to get better at a game you love.
>I don't know why you keep repeating this and making it personal. I'm pretty sure I'm better at these games than you lol.
Because your inability to understand this and even going as far as to say they're not hard, just tells me you're a clown looking for clout for achievements you haven't even done yourself, similar to the retard a couple months ago who claimed he could beat Ghouls sword only cause he was so good at the game, despite the fact that its impossible to beat one of the bosses with sword, he still acted like it was totally doable and not that hard.

>>9892269
Yeah, arcade version of Ghouls has a very fucked checkpoint system. Made it pretty annoying to play imo, since it was now harder to figure out where chests were because you didn't get to replay much of the levels. I think I even used save states to restart me at the beginning of the first level during the second loop so I could actually find the bracelet.
My only guess is that maybe Capcom found GNG too brutal so they made Ghouls more brute forcible with like 6 checkpoint per stage. This is the only game I can see a case being made for on 1cc-ing.

>>9892410
>I'm saying that the game is hard no matter how many credits you put in.
ok speak for yourself, if you find a 50cc and 20cc hard that's a skill issue on your part. That's fine, you're a beginner or haven't bothered learning these games or playing mindfully. But you shouldn't be so opinionated while being inexperienced...

>you're a clown looking for clout for achievements you haven't even done yourself
I didn't mention my personal achievements, they don't matter, since you're objectively wrong. But since you keep bringing them up and acting like an authority here are some of my runs:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULcDMtJmC7Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UL8vDoAamU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35OMeKi0qu4

Now where are yours?

>>9892434
You're the one who's objectively wrong. The game is hard no matter what, the entire world agrees on this, this is why its regarded as a hard game.
As for the videos, you've got no proof that they're yours, even if they are, you're still wrong. It doesn't matter if you 1cc while playing with just your toes, that's on you, its your own self-imposed challenge and is not required to beat the game.

>>9892447
>you've got no proof that they're yours
post a comment on my latest vid and I'll reply.

> The game is hard no matter what, the entire world agrees on this
Because they don't bother to actually learn the games, they flail mindlessly and every checkpoint seems insurmountable at first

>>9892434
Knightly runs, bro. I'm watching them to learn.
How come you don't try magic again on the devil after your first one misses him in the fist one?

>>9892463
>Knightly runs, bro. I'm watching them to learn.
thanks, good luck with yours

>How come you don't try magic again on the devil after your first one misses him in the fist one?
that works too, im just used to fighting it without magic

I think that continuing to beat a game does count as beating it, personally. You have passed all the challenges offered by the game. The next step, if you like the game well enough, is to pass them consecutively within the lives limit of a single play.
It's kind of the bronze sandard in games like the GnGs, 1cc being silver, and nomiss being gold.
I like them because you can't brute force through any single hurdle because of the checkpoints; you must become good enough at that discreet section to get to the next. It feels proper to me.

>>9892462
Brother if was all it took to make a game not hard, hard games wouldn't exist. By that logic even a 1cc could be considered easy because you just have to take the time to learn it.
Hard games require learning and sometimesare just outright bullshit with rng, that's what makes them hard in the first place.
Why are you so adamant about a 1cc being the only way to beat the game? Is a personal accomplishment not enough for you? Do you only play these games just to try and get clout for them online?

>>9892818
Will also add that execution is also required. Can't just read up about a hard game and then ace it first try.

>>9892434
ok you make it look pretty easy desu what the big deal?

>>9892818
Not him, but why are you so hung up on this? You realise that while a 200 credit clear is still a clear, it's easier to creditfeed into a clear rather than having absolutely no safety net with a 1 credit clear?

Here's what I wanna know: Do you consider clearing a game as "beating" it? Because it's hard to say you've beaten a game until you've removed any and all safety nets before clearing it. Hearing someone bowled a 300 becomes less impressive when you hear they had the gutter rails up, even if they never needed them.

>>9892479
>You have passed all the challenges offered by the game.
If a game doesn't have checkpoints then this isn't true at all.

>>9892479
Participation Trophy - 3cc Any Settings - Lives up to 9
Bronze - 1cc Easiest settings - Lives up to 9
Silver - 1cc Easy difficulty - Default lives
Gold - 1cc Default settings
Diamond - No Miss Default Settings
Platinum - 1cc Hardest settings
Unobtainium - No Miss hardest settings

WHERE IS THE FUCKING PATCH

>>9894619
Clearing a game and beating it are the same thing.
A 1cc in a game with checkpoints to me is the same thing as doing a "no game over" playthrough of any home console game. Its harder than playing normally, but it is by no means a requirement to say you've beaten the game.

For example, I beat Strider using idk how many credits in one of the Capcom collections on PS2, but the game has checkpoints and I needed to actually have some mastery over the levels to beat it. If I remember correctly the game even sends you back to the very beginning of the level you were on when you game over.

I've played through King of Dragons and Knights of the Round a couple times, but don't really think much of it since they're beat em ups, and you can just spam credits and mash attack until you reach the end, its more of a fun spectacle than anything worth saying you beat. 1cc actually makes sense for these.

>>9894926
>but the game has checkpoints and I needed to actually have some mastery over the levels to beat it.
there's no mastery involved if you need to spam continues per checkpoint to progress lol, getting multiple game overs per check point isn't mastery, that's the opposite of mastery that means you suck

>>9894959
lots of players grew up on console games and rpgs where game over just means you reload from your last save file. they don't have a concept of a ''run'' in their mind so they think beating a game is just getting to the end credits whatever way you can...and they assume checkpoints are the game auto-saving for you, so when you game over you dont lose your progress but are allowed to continue
its cringe but its even worse now, some ports allow saving and rewiding and people think they ''beat'' a game legit because rewinding is now a feature

Damn wish I still had my fanart folder. Bumping anyways because GnG is top kino.

>>9894959
If there's no mastery involved then that means you don't have to adapt whatsoever. It is impossible to beat a game with checkpoints if you just do the exact same thing over and over and don't learn or adapt.

>>9894984
Beating a game IS just getting to the end credits. This idea that you have to do a specific challenge to beat a game is pure autism made up by you, no one actually thinks like that.
>they don't have a concept of a ''run'' in their mind
Everything has to be some kind of special run? You can't just play and beat a game normally? What are you some kind of speedrun tranny?

>I beat this game!
>5 Game Overs per checkpoint
nah looks to me like the game beat you over and over, try again and git gud

>>9895032
>I 1cc'd this game!
>it took several failed runs to achieve
Sounds like the game beat you.

>I 1cc'd first try!
>game still says game over at the end
Too bad, you lost.

>>9895038
>>it took several failed runs to achieve
yeah but he eventually got the 1cc, meanwhile all your runs are failed runs lol

>>9895049
I don't have a single failed run since I've never went for 1cc.
I guess I could say I've 1cc'd Megaman Power Battle several times, but I was never after 1cc, I was after a high score for the leaderboards on Capcom Stadium.
I'll 1cc Galaga 88 at some point, but I don't care about the 1cc, I'm not after that, I'm playing it for score to get high up on the leaderboards in Namco Museum on Switch, while at the same time trying to finish the game for the first time, killing two birds with one stone.

>only two hundred game overs per checkpoint that run
>I really had to adapt and improve
>I achieved a certain level of mastery to be honest only 200 game overs per check point that playthrough

>>9895060
If they beat it, then yeah, then have a level of mastery over it, however small it may be, they still adapted to and overcame the challenges. I don't give a fuck it if took them years even.

>>9894926
>Its harder than playing normally, but it is by no means a requirement to say you've beaten the game.
Much in the same way you can claim to bowl a 300 with the gutter rails up and enough time to do it. It can be done but is inherently less impressive and no serious bowler would consider your 300 legitimate. But hey, you "did it". After restarting anytime you didn't get a strike you eventually got the satisfaction of bowling a 300. Well done.

It's pretty apparent to me that you don't actually like the game you're playing, otherwise it wouldn't be such a chore to make mistakes and lose. Case in point
>I've played through King of Dragons and Knights of the Round a couple times, but don't really think much of it since they're beat em ups
Oh you don't think much of beat-em-ups? I wonder why that is...
>you can just spam credits and mash attack until you reach the end, its more of a fun spectacle than anything worth saying you beat.
Oh right, it's because you clearly don't like the game, don't respect the challenge, and yet presumably wasted a bunch of time playing it anyways for god knows what reason.
>a fun spectacle
Watch a walkthrough.

>>9895063
they didn't beat anything, they just credit fed the game. 1cc is how you beat a game with game overs.

>>9882293
Gorgeous

>>9895120
>credit feed
>100 continues to see the credits
Ah, yes, I beat the game, feels satisfying. I finished it! Time to move on to the next challenge :)

>>9895112
Your bowling comparison is like saying you 1cc'd a game but changed the settings to start with the maximum number of lives and have the game give you extra lives for the lowest amount of points.
Beating a game is like winning a game of bowling with some friends, but then some autistic 1cc sperg comes over and says you actually lost the game because you landed in the gutter once.
>Oh you don't think much of beat-em-ups? I wonder why that is...
>Oh right, it's because you clearly don't like the game, don't respect the challenge, and yet presumably wasted a bunch of time playing it anyways for god knows what reason.
>Watch a walkthrough.
Yeah, god forbid I played them just to have fun. What an absolute retard you are, you're so obsessed with trying to be some video game hotshot that you can't even comprehend why people play games in the first place or why games were even made.

>>9895120
They did beat the game, they got to the end, beat the last boss and the game ended. If they quit midway through, then they're only feeding the machine.

>>9895143
>100 credit run
>so satisfying
lol

>>9895178
then your definition of beating is meaningless normie shit

>>9895205
>my definition of beating is the normal definition of beating
Yes, because I'm not autistic. If I really love a game, I'll do challenge runs, I don't bother for arcade games because high score is the only challenge that matters to me in arcade games, but for home console I'll do plenty of shit.
If someone says they beat Megaman X, I'm not gonna tell them they didn't really beat it because they didn't do a minimalist playthrough with buster only and no armor just because I did it myself.
I've beaten Panel de Pon on super hard without losing once, but that doesn't make that the only way to beat the game.

Beating a game is as simple as getting to the end, using only what's in the game, save states don't count, but if the game lets you continue after a game over, its fair game, its what the devs intended.

>>9895228
>Yes, because I'm not autistic
you are autistic, but in the wrong direction lmao
you've been coping for days in this thread and arguing with multiple people instead of getting good

>>9895169
The very obvious comparison between 1cc and bowling a 300 is that they're both "perfect" games. This isn't just about clearing, it's about clearing in the absolute hardest manner.
>changed the settings to start with the maximum number of lives and have the game give you extra lives for the lowest amount of points.
I was comparing bowling a 300 with gutter rails up and infinite time to credit feeding. Glad to see you understand despite your attempts to misconstrue.
>Beating a game is like winning a game of bowling with some friends
That's called clearing a game. In order to "beat" bowling means bowling a perfect game. A 300.
>then some autistic 1cc sperg comes over and says you actually lost the game because you landed in the gutter once.
If that 1cc sperg is in your group and bowled a 300 you would lose to him.
>god forbid I played them just to have fun
Losing is fun when you enjoy the gameplay, it sure sounds like your idea of fun involves no challenge or consequences for failure which is why you'd get the same enjoyment from watching a walkthrough. If losing spoils your fun that badly try an activity you are physically unable to lose. Consider taking up knitting

>>9895231
>you are autistic
>you've been coping
Nice projection.

>>9895242
Who are you talking to?

>>9895238
>This isn't just about clearing, it's about clearing in the absolute hardest manner.
Exactly, its about going above and beyond, not just crossing the finish line, now you're getting it.
>That's called clearing a game. In order to "beat" bowling means bowling a perfect game. A 300.
Clearing, finishing, beating, its all the exact same thing. Trying to attach a specific label to each is nothing but autism, and no one is going to know what you mean except you. Even completing a game will typically be thought of as just beating it, which is why you need to specify 100%.
>If that 1cc sperg is in your group and bowled a 300 you would lose to him.
But it still wouldn't change the fact that I won against my group. A win is still a win, you don't have to play perfectly.
>Losing is fun when you enjoy the gameplay, it sure sounds like your idea of fun involves no challenge or consequences for failure which is why you'd get the same enjoyment from watching a walkthrough
Some games I want to just play, others I want to challenge myself, its fun depending on my mood. Watching a walkthrough is the same as just watching a demo play on a cabinet and then saying you got the same enjoyment as if you played it. You go on and on about 1ccs, but I'm gonna be honest, if you don't know how to have fun with a game and can't comprehend people beating the game in any other fashion, then maybe you've never really played a video game before. You've had a fundamental misunderstanding of video games from the start and never played one for real.

ENTER

>>9895269
>Exactly, its about going above and beyond, not just crossing the finish line, now you're getting it.
Yup, that's the distinction between beating a game and merely clearing it. Took you long enough.
>Clearing, finishing, beating, its all the exact same thing. Trying to attach a specific label to each is nothing but autism, and no one is going to know what you mean except you.
You do know exactly what I mean, you just confirmed it earlier. You've tacitly conceded by attempting to shut the conversation down. So, that'll be the end of that discussion.
>it still wouldn't change the fact that I won against my group.
You are mistaking beating bowling for beating your friends at bowling; To beat bowling itself is to bowl a perfect game. The act of trying for a perfect game is higher stakes than casually playing with friends, you know this but will not acknowledge it because you think it isn't relevant. No stranger cares that you played bowling with your friends, and that's fine. They would care if you bowled a perfect game, and not only is there no need to do so but their praise wouldn't matter.

Did you ever consider that people play challenging games for fun? And like losing? Did you consider that someone that can bowl 300 is someone that just really likes bowling and isn't doing it for the sole purpose of showing off? Apparently winning is all that matters to you, including this conversation. So, congratulations! You win.

>I beat the game with only 500 continues!! why don't you validate me and recognize it as a win?!!!
it's so tiresome

I consider a game beaten when I'm personally bored with it.

>>9895391
>load up Futari Ultra
>can't get past stage 2
>get bored of sucking get bored of the game
Yep I beat the game!

>>9895397
Product issue.

>>9895346
>Yup, that's the distinction between beating a game and merely clearing it. Took you long enough.
No, that's the distinction between beating a game, and 1cc-ing it.
>You do know exactly what I mean, you just confirmed it earlier.
Only after you've explained your made up distinctions between them, I know what you mean by it, I'm still telling you you're wrong though, and they don't have different meanings.
>You are mistaking beating bowling for beating your friends at bowling; To beat bowling itself is to bowl a perfect game. The act of trying for a perfect game is higher stakes than casually playing with friends, you know this but will not acknowledge it because you think it isn't relevant.
There is no beating bowling itself in the first place. The game itself doesn't have a fail state to end early, it just goes and then ends, the only sort of victory condition is playing against other people for score, similar to getting a high score in an arcade game. Really, a 300 in bowling is like maxing out the high score in an arcade game. It was a bad analogy on your part in the first place.
>Did you ever consider that people play challenging games for fun? And like losing?
I play challenging games for fun, I literally said so myself in my last post. You're the one who can't grasp how I have fun doing anything but chase 1ccs.
>Did you consider that someone that can bowl 300 is someone that just really likes bowling and isn't doing it for the sole purpose of showing off?
Clearly you don't do it for fun, since you're all about shoving 1ccs down people's throats as the only way to finish games.
>Apparently winning is all that matters to you
That's literally you, all you care about is winning at games and acting like others haven't won at them because you won better. For fucks sake, look in a mirror, dude.

How do you fight the red aremers?

>>9895410
I just wait until they march back and forth on the ground and then I spam attack when they charge at me. Its almost flawless for Super, but I remember not being able to get the strat to work as consistently in the other games.

>>9895407
You've acknowledged distinction between what you call "beat" and what you call "1cc". You keep using the word "beat" in place of "clear" for no given reason beyond apparent personal connotation. Again you've tacitly conceded though acknowledging the distinction regardless of the given jargon
>Really, a 300 in bowling is like maxing out the high score in an arcade game.
Yeah no it's about perfect execution not merely score but you're close.
>I play challenging games for fun, I literally said so myself in my last post.
Cool, And if you enjoyed losing you wouldn't feel a need to creditfeed whatsoever. That "And" part was crucial to the point.
>you're all about shoving 1ccs down people's throats as the only way to finish games.
I'm not the anon you think you're talking to, I stepped in at >>9894619 and my position has always been that 1cc/beating a game isn't a requirement for enjoying it, but that beating it is a requirement for saying you beat it. The fact you don't realise this entire argument is a result of lexical semantics seems to indicate your inability to follow the conversation, thus the numerous accidental concedements.
>all you care about is winning at games and acting like others haven't won at them because you won better
Right now all I care about is being pedantic regarding your miscomprehension. You are apparently insulted by the very idea of someone invalidating your achievements by daring to mention their own self-imposed criteria... You've said you're not interested in running 1cc. Why do you care if others are? Why do you care if your "clear" isn't considered the same as their "beat"? I think it's because you hate losing, which is why you're still trying to argue despite tacitly conceding long ago

Damn the 200cc shitter is losing at his games and e-debating! Oof!

>>9895487
>You've acknowledged distinction between what you call "beat" and what you call "1cc". You keep using the word "beat" in place of "clear" for no given reason beyond apparent personal connotation.
I use the word beat for games because that's just what I use. Some people say finish usually, others say clear. Its all used for the same meaning, you played through the game all the way to the end.
>Yeah no it's about perfect execution not merely score but you're close.
Then your analogy is still off, because a 1cc is by no means perfect execution. A maxed out high score is literally called a perfect game for a reason.
>Cool, And if you enjoyed losing you wouldn't feel a need to creditfeed whatsoever. That "And" part was crucial to the point.
I enjoy overcoming things I lose to, that's what makes challenging games satisfying to beat. You act like putting in more credits takes away from that but it doesn't, its like saying you can't beat Megaman or Castlevania unless you reset your NES every time you game over. You are meant to use the continues.
>my position has always been that 1cc/beating a game isn't a requirement for enjoying it, but that beating it is a requirement for saying you beat it.
Basically you just have a stick up your ass around the word beat being used the way that it is normally used.
>You are apparently insulted by the very idea of someone invalidating your achievements by daring to mention their own self-imposed criteria...
You aren't mentioning 1cc, you are enforcing it like a made up law, and that's why I have an issue with you.
>You've said you're not interested in running 1cc. Why do you care if others are? Why do you care if your "clear" isn't considered the same as their "beat"?
I don't care if you run 1cc, why do you care that others don't? You're the one with the issue of people using the word beat outside of your own autistic interpretation of the word.
>I think it's because you hate losing
I just hate retards.

I never cared about continues in Mega Man or Castlevania to be honest. If I got a game over the punishment was being booted back to the select screen and losing my checkpoint.

''beating means seeing the credits'' for me this only applies to story games, rpgs, and long games that require save files.

But if a game is 1-2 hours long and can be done in one sitting, and it has game overs/continues then beating it = 1cc to me.

>>9895617
What about medium length platformers like Donkey Kong Country? Should I reset if I get a game over?

>>9895410
I've found you mostly have to react to their moves and counterattack rather than proactively attack them. Depends on the game as well. In the original gng, they're mostly pretty easy, just jump away from their airborne swoop and shoot towards them as you fly to safety.
In original gng and super ghouls n ghosts, sometimes you can jump, throw a weapon as you're descending JUST above their head and then throw another just as you're landing, which will make them leap up into the air, running into the first projectile you threw above their head. Depending on the weapon, you might be able to get a couple hits in this way.
I'm sure there's stuff in wikis and on youtube telling the optimal way, this is just what I've learned in my own experience playing these games. Sometimes it's best not to know the way to break a game until you learn how to do it organically through trial and error.

>>9895531
>Its all used for the same meaning
You acknowledged the distinction between 1cc and multiple credit clears while calling multiple credit clears "beating" the game because, again
>>personal connotation
I'm just pointing out that beating something means to defeat it, which can't be said until the game poses absolutely no obstacle. Missing out on score is for the granular deep-dives of these titles and isn't a requirement for getting 1cc
>1cc is by no means perfect execution.
The only value that determines a perfect run for 1cc is credits used. The fact there is room for competition in 1cc runs via score attack is what keeps the games interesting, it doesn't make the 1cc run imperfect if you miss some points, though it would if you were doing something incredibly hard like, oh let's just coin the term "1-credit-collect-every-point-clear [1ccepc]". If you miss a point during a 1ccepc you're fucked.

>I enjoy overcoming things I lose to, that's what makes challenging games satisfying to beat.
Yea.
>You are meant to use the continues.
It's not obligated. They let you choose because
>I enjoy overcoming things I lose to, that's what makes challenging games satisfying to beat.

>you just have a stick up your ass
Oh and you're so peachy.

>you are enforcing it like a made up law
Through what mechanism you dense faggot? I am enforcing words with words, that's it. Words don't hold power over you, even if they say you suck at games. You can say you beat an arcade game with your forehead because of how much you suck. It really doesn't matter, yet you're still here wanting random people to agree on your ability to beat games with no regard as to what beat means within your context. May as well ask for a blowjob while you're at it.

>>9892434
Based vrocs

>>9895419
In Super they're defenseless against bow and special attacks anyway.

>>9895683
>You acknowledged the distinction between 1cc and multiple credit clears while calling multiple credit clears "beating" the game because
Because it is beating the game, both are beating the game. The difference is one is beating the game normally and the other is a self-imposed challenge using rules not in the game itself you restrict your gameplay and make it harder.
>I'm just pointing out that beating something means to defeat it,
If you defeat the final boss, you have defeated the game, you beat the game. You don't have to master every aspect of a game to beat it.
>which can't be said until the game poses absolutely no obstacle.
Then a 1cc isn't beating it either, you might as well say you have to be able to do multiple 1ccs consecutively to beat the game, otherwise the game is still a challenge for you and by your own logic, you haven't beaten yet.
>The only value that determines a perfect run for 1cc is credits used
Its still not a perfect run for the game itself, you still can't equate that to a perfect game in bowling.
>Through what mechanism you dense faggot? I am enforcing words with words, that's it.
Exactly, you're enforcing it, it doesn't have to be physically, dipshit.
>Words don't hold power over you, even if they say you suck at games.
Of course they don't, but I'm still calling you out on your retardation because you're using your own made up logic and meanings for words so you can go "UM ACKSHUALLY" and feel smarter while you just look like an ass.
>It really doesn't matter, yet you're still here wanting random people to agree on your ability to beat games with no regard as to what beat means within your context.
There's already people here that agree with me, and its not my own context, its the context of the entire community, you are the odd ones out who try to feel special by making up your own definitions to try and invalidate people.

So if I completed Super Mario Bros. 3 but used continues I didn't really beat the game?

>>9894926
>A 1cc in a game with checkpoints to me is the same thing as doing a "no game over" playthrough of any home console game. Its harder than playing normally, but it is by no means a requirement to say you've beaten the game.
It really isn't because you are still getting unlimited tries at getting past those checkpoints. Compared to the 1cc attempt where you have something on the line every time you die and dying even once means less tries at every future checkpoint.

>>9895831
By the way yes, it is quite similar to a "no game overs" run over some console games with the caveat that many console games have very easy methods to farm arbitrary amounts of lives.

>>9895737
Your idea of what constitutes "the game" is flawed.

>>9895627
If you are going for 1cc.
However, a 1cc of DKC is very easy since there are many opportunities to farm lives. In that game a no-death run is the prestige.

Tbqh the term "beat the game" is nebulous and I avoid it because of the arguments like those in this thread that result from its usage.

>>9895737
>make it harder
That's the whole point, it's making the game as difficult as possible without modifying the code. It's using the games rules to define what you can and can't do with a single credit.
>BUT CONTINUES-
"end" is an option too. They're both intended design.
>You don't have to master every aspect of a game to beat it.
Replay value. The more there is to master the more game there is to play. Why not do insanely difficult runs if you're capable? Do you only get games to argue about them online?
>you still can't equate that to a perfect game in bowling.
If you can't see the metaphor of bowling with no mistakes as having one credit, I can't force you to. It's apparent you're trying hard to overlook this really obvious metaphor which would indicate you're getting exhausted. You could always go play a game.
>it doesn't have to be physically, dipshit.
Yes it kinda does if you're going to start crying oppression. I am unable to stop you from having and sharing your stupid opinions, nor is it my job to enforce that. What you are experiencing is called a conversation, and the only reason you're being so hostile is because you're being defensive over nothing. Case in point:
>you're using your own made up logic and meanings for words so you can go "UM ACKSHUALLY" and feel smarter while you just look like an ass.
Written without even a hint of self-awareness. Ah, irony.
>There's already people here that agree with me, and its not my own context, its the context of the entire community
You're anonymous and so are they. This community is not monolithic, stop playing guess who.
>making up your own definitions to try and invalidate people.
Again with the insecurity... It's to specify, but of course you take it as invalidation. Thanks for making the point that you are your own worst critic

>>9895831
Still, its a self-imposed challenge, which is the main point. Its ridiculous to me to see anyone thinking a self-imposed challenge is the only way to say they've beaten a game.

>>9895850
>Tbqh the term "beat the game" is nebulous and I avoid it because of the arguments like those in this thread that result from its usage.
I've never heard of anyone interpreting it differently until this thread. Genuinely I think its just pure anonymous autism, and at least half the people arguing how only 1ccs count are being disingenuous about it just to argue and act superior. Same as what you'd see for threads on /v/ where people scream about how using specific mechanics in this or that means you didn't beat it.

>>9895874
Way to tell on yourself newfriend, 1cc = beaten has been around since this board started, you are right to denote it as /v/ pissantry though as that's where it started.

>>9884334
If 1ccing is daunting the. Just set an arbitrary continue limit. Put in 3 credits at the start of the game and just play until you run out. Keeps the same spirit, just more manageable

The point is not to fall into the consequences free act of using infinite continues

>>9895873
>"end" is an option too. They're both intended design.
And yet you say one doesn't count.
>Replay value.
That has nothing to do with beating a game though, that just gives you more to play with?
>Why not do insanely difficult runs if you're capable?
Sure if you're capable, but that's not at all required to say you've beaten a game. It makes more sense as a requirement to say you've mastered a game.
>If you can't see the metaphor of bowling with no mistakes as having one credit, I can't force you to.
Your metaphor is bad. 1cc still allows you to make mistakes, you can die, you don't have to worry about maximizing your score.
>Yes it kinda does if you're going to start crying oppression.
I'm telling you exactly what you're doing. Look at the top of the thread, someone talks about beating one of these games, then a 1ccfag immediately inserts his personalized definition of beating the games, several people think its stupid, shitflinging ensues as demands everyone play the game the way he wants them to, to be able to say they beat it. Doesn't matter if it wasn't you who started it, you're on his side of the argument.
>Written without even a hint of self-awareness. Ah, irony.
I'm using the actual meanings that everyone else uses. Not some random specified definitions made up by some losers who don't think others are as worthy as them.
>You're anonymous and so are they.
And they still agreed with me, hell I agreed with the first guy who criticized the "1cc meme"
>Again with the insecurity... It's to specify, but of course you take it as invalidation. Thanks for making the point that you are your own worst critic
I'm not being insecure at all, YOU are the ones who are insecure. Like I've said before, 1ccing the game for yourselves isn't good enough and you have to shove it down other people's throats. If you weren't insecure about it, you wouldn't care about trying to tell people they didn't actually beat the game.

>>9895874
You haven't really been paying attention if you thought you beat Final Fight by credit feeding.

>>9895954
You really haven't been paying attention if you think I view beat em ups the same as games with checkpoints when it comes to continues.

>>9895935
>And yet you say one doesn't count.
Stop playing guess who and quote it.
>that just gives you more to play with?
You really think people are playing 1cc the first time around until they beat it? No wonder you're so opposed.
>It makes more sense as a requirement to say you've mastered a game
Mastered is definitely more telling, though I prefer the idea of physically fighting the game, like you're "beating" it. It's a lot more visceral to say you've beaten a game rather than to say you cleared a game, I feel that should be reflected in the difficulty of the playstyle.
Yes, you can say you beat games without having 1cc'd them. There's nothing stopping you. It just feels inaccurate to use violent language for what is supposed to be an intended experience.
>that's autism
Some folks got no appreciation for nuance
>shitflinging ensues
Again welcome to 4chan
>I'm using the actual meanings that everyone else uses. Not some random specified definitions made up by some losers who don't think others are as worthy as them.
>>Written without even a hint of self-awareness. Ah, irony.
>they still agreed with me
still demonstrating your appreciation for validation from internet strangers
I swear half this site forgot what being anonymous was for
>1ccing the game for yourselves isn't good enough and you have to shove it down other people's throats
Meanwhile you wanna share what games you viciously brutalized, I mean beat. Again, you're guilty of the very thing you condemn: Liking a game for how you play it. The fucking atrocity!!

>>9895987
>Stop playing guess who and quote it.
>>9894619
>it's hard to say you've beaten a game until you've removed any and all safety nets before clearing it
>You really think people are playing 1cc the first time around until they beat it?
I would hope not, that sounds miserable, however with how you people tell others to play, that's what it sounds like you want everyone to do.
>Yes, you can say you beat games without having 1cc'd them. There's nothing stopping you. It just feels inaccurate to use violent language for what is supposed to be an intended experience.
To you, it may feel off, but that's not how the rest of the world sees it. Saying 1cc is the only way to beat a game sounds elitist as hell, and naturally people will give you shit for it. Doing it regardless? Yeah I'd call it autism.
>still demonstrating your appreciation for validation from internet strangers
You're the one that brought up people here agreeing with me in the first place.
>Meanwhile you wanna share what games you viciously brutalized, I mean beat. Again, you're guilty of the very thing you condemn: Liking a game for how you play it. The fucking atrocity!!
You are making zero sense with this. There's a massive difference between talking about what games you've beaten with other people, and, talking about how people didn't actually beat the game you beat because you beat it better than they did.

>>9896058
>it's hard to say you've beaten a game until you've removed any and all safety nets before clearing it
I'll stand behind that. There's no gutter rails in competition games, but it's perfectly fine for five pin birthday parties. With neon and black lights!! Definitely an experience focused on engagement rather than skill.
>however with how you people tell others to play, that's what it sounds like you want everyone to do.
I can understand why it comes off like that (see previous). Look, if you want to play casually, that's totally fine. Just acknowledge you're playing casually, it's not a big deal. You're anonymous.
>that's not how the rest of the world sees it.
Again, you're anonymous. You don't get to speak for anyone other than yourself. I understand your sentiment, and you understand there's a contrary sentiment. No new broken ground here. Less shitflinging though.
>You're the one that brought up people here agreeing with me in the first place.
Yeah because you don't know them. Someone spewing "based" at your opinion isn't an exchange or growing of ideas, it's just tribalism. Take it with a grain of salt and twenty bottles of water.
>There's a massive difference between talking about what games you've beaten with other people, and, talking about how people didn't actually beat the game you beat because you beat it better than they did.
Yeah and that discussion is motivated by how a person prefers to play. Let's not pretend there aren't opinionated shitheads everywhere spewing their opinion regardless of where they stand.
Yeah, 4chan could stand to be a bit less hostile about what it thinks. And it also wouldn't feel as honest.
>...comfy...
Long dead. Shame too.

>>9896091
>I'll stand behind that. There's no gutter rails in competition games
But beating a game isn't a competition in the first place.
>I can understand why it comes off like that (see previous). Look, if you want to play casually, that's totally fine. Just acknowledge you're playing casually
I don't think a single non-1cc person in this thread ever said they weren't playing casually. Casual play is the default for playing games, same as how getting to the end is the default for beating them.
>Again, you're anonymous. You don't get to speak for anyone other than yourself.
I can speak for literally everyone I've ever known on this. If I ask my coworkers tomorrow if they think a 1cc is the only way to beat arcade games, they'd either laugh at the idea or scoff at it and say no. This shit is literally a case of just "/v/ pissantry".
>Yeah because you don't know them. Someone spewing "based" at your opinion isn't an exchange or growing of ideas, it's just tribalism.
There's other people arguing against 1cc being the only way to beat GNG in this very thread, we agree by having the same views. I don't know what more you want out of it. I don't have to personally know someone to agree with them.
For example I agree with >>9890764 we have the same viewpoint on this. I literally said in one of my posts that I get the 1cc mentality for stuff without checkpoints since they just put you right back where you were with zero consequence.

>>9896171
Beating a game isn't a birthday party either.
>Casual play is the default for playing games
If you're a casual gamer yeah. Clearly we have different ideas on what makes a casual gamer.
>I can speak for literally everyone I've ever known on this.
And because you're anonymous your anecdotes are worthless.
>This shit is literally a case of just "/v/ pissantry".
No shit, and yet the fact this idea hasn't died yet only serves to prove it has merit beyond shitposting
>There's other people arguing
I don't fucking care who is arguing. We're all anonymous, that doesn't mean anything.
>I don't know what more you want out of it. I don't have to personally know someone to agree with them.
You also don't need to reiterate someone's point if you already agree with it, nor do you need to suck his dick in comradery.

If it makes sense for you sometimes, great, whatever. That means you're capable of understanding why someone else would prefer it, specifically because they're not you.

>>9896259
>>9896171
>>9896091
>>9896058
>>9895987
cringe

HEY GUYS, WHEN'S MY TURN FOR A REMAKE?

>>9896259
>If you're a casual gamer yeah. Clearly we have different ideas on what makes a casual gamer.
Clearly, because I don't see how you have to be a casual to play games casually.
>No shit, and yet the fact this idea hasn't died yet only serves to prove it has merit beyond shitposting
Some merit for certain games, sure. Definitely not in the general way that its being used by anons though.
>I don't fucking care who is arguing. We're all anonymous, that doesn't mean anything.
If you don't care, why bother caring about this argument? I know I've just about stopped caring because this has gone way off from the original argument, and points have to keep being reiterated over and over and over.

>>9896379
Being a casual isn't ubiquitous throughout every game you play, just the ones you play casually. I play puzzle games casually. Some play sudoku with one foot in the grave.
>I know I've just about stopped caring
I could tell

>>9882097
>I love series
>I suck shit at it
Why don't you fix that? It's much more enjoyable to be good at a series you like

I rather enjoyed the Master System version of Ghouls and Ghosts because it has a unique upgrade and magic system. It was a fun thing for a home version

I consider myself okay at platformers. I've beaten Holy Diver, most Castlevanias, etc. all without any save states or rewinds or other emulator faggotry, yet GnG still busts my fucking balls. Really need to go back and give it another try sometime. I could only ever get to that level with the two flying devils at the end, who always pushed my shit in.

>>9897674
>I could only ever get to that level with the two flying devils at the end
They are pretty tough, did you get that far on 1 credit or did you use many continues? If you can get that far on 1 credit then you are pretty close to beating the first loop

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-18kFb0nPzU

The History of Ghosts 'n Goblins (and Makaimura 魔界村) - Full Series Retrospective

Rebranding the 3d game to Maximo was a weird decision

>>9897508
I only have so much patience and time. I got other things to do. Maybe someday but I enjoy them well enough as it is.

>>9898820
>I only have so much patience and time.
fair enough maybe less time chatting and more time gaming then