View Single Post

Default 

August 7th, 2013, 16:49
Originally Posted by rjshae View Post
I've been back to replay a lot of those old games that people rave about, and guess what? They are often boring, tedious, and shallow. Many modern games are a vast improvement. Now if they are just comparing the very best of the old games to recent releases, then they need to compare those old games to the very best of the modern games.
I don't think a generalisation like this should go unchallenged really - so I'd like to hear actual specific games thanks before I even start to take such a claim seriously.
Bear in mind that such presumptions are often made through the lense of modernity and so one is almost "spoilt" in these gluttonous days of dual wielding video cards and graphics dominating over gameplay. Thus, there is a natural difference in value judgement from which era one dips their feet in first.
Heaven forbid us having to use a bit of imagination to fill in the gaps.

Originally Posted by rjshae View Post
I think this is usually done to avoid tedious map traversals in order to restore health. What would you rather do: spend 20 minutes moving back and forth to a hospice in order to receive healing from a cleric/healer, or spend a few seconds waiting while your health recovers? I guess they could throw up a graphic saying you tromped back to get your health fixed, then returned.
The former. I'd prefer to survive via a more realistic game mechanic than have silly regenerating health thank you very much! Besides, I even have great memories finding the less risky resting points in games. For example - the sections of the dungeons in Curse of the Azure Bonds wherever you "search area" (found on the map after disposing of the Fire Knives).

Diddledy high,
Diddledy low,
Come brave blood sheep,
You've a goodly way to go.
- Brilhasti Ap Tarj
Pessimeister is online now

Pessimeister

Pessimeister's Avatar
Living Backwards

#19

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 930