I love the second one and I still havent finished it, new game is so tempting...Imbechile said:Baldur's gate 1+2. Yes, flame me but the gameplay is so clunky.
The graphics still look nice. I'm still going to beat it![]()
I love the second one and I still havent finished it, new game is so tempting...Imbechile said:Baldur's gate 1+2. Yes, flame me but the gameplay is so clunky.
The graphics still look nice. I'm still going to beat it![]()
I don't hate you, i just disagree with you.Onyxious said:Please don't kill me for this, but
Grand theft auto: Vice City, San Andreas, and 3
Sorry
They were good games, but after 4... Eh, they kind of became unplayable.
Yep. The controller has 3 grips, and it's symmetrical. So if you hold it by the central grip, it's perfectly balanced.WanderingFool said:Dual Controller Setup? You actually played the game holding a controller in each hand... damn...CrystalShadow said:I disagree on the N64 controller being bad, but I appear to be in the minority. As for playing goldeneye with 1 analog stick, why would anyone do that? ;p - I used the dual controller setup, (which, ironically is only possible because of the 'crazy' design of the N64 controller - It's actually viable to hold one in each hand. Granted, this becomes meaningless when later controller designs had 2 analog sticks anyway, but that's a somewhat different issue.)WanderingFool said:Well, im not sure about KH, but with Goldeneye, one must remember that we were playing that with a single stick on what had to be the worst designed controller in history...Drakmeire said:Kingdom Hearts is still fun but when you go back and play it, you realize how linear all the levels are, as well as how annoying the camera is. KHII has aged slightly better but the levels are still pretty confining.
Also Banjo Kazooie's controls can be a little clunky at times. and the levels feel extremely small.
and finally, play Bioshock, Fallout 3 or any modern shooter, then go play Goldeneye 64. it feels very awkward
CrystalShadow said:Yep. The controller has 3 grips, and it's symmetrical. So if you hold it by the central grip, it's perfectly balanced.WanderingFool said:Dual Controller Setup? You actually played the game holding a controller in each hand... damn...CrystalShadow said:I disagree on the N64 controller being bad, but I appear to be in the minority. As for playing goldeneye with 1 analog stick, why would anyone do that? ;p - I used the dual controller setup, (which, ironically is only possible because of the 'crazy' design of the N64 controller - It's actually viable to hold one in each hand. Granted, this becomes meaningless when later controller designs had 2 analog sticks anyway, but that's a somewhat different issue.)WanderingFool said:Well, im not sure about KH, but with Goldeneye, one must remember that we were playing that with a single stick on what had to be the worst designed controller in history...Drakmeire said:Kingdom Hearts is still fun but when you go back and play it, you realize how linear all the levels are, as well as how annoying the camera is. KHII has aged slightly better but the levels are still pretty confining.
Also Banjo Kazooie's controls can be a little clunky at times. and the levels feel extremely small.
and finally, play Bioshock, Fallout 3 or any modern shooter, then go play Goldeneye 64. it feels very awkward
If you've got an N64 anywhere, 2 controllers (that still work; I'll admit there's a serious durability issue with the analog sticks), and a copy of Goldeneye or Perfect Dark, go into the game options, and switch the controller setup from 1.1 (the default) to 2.1 (or 2.2, 2.3 or 2.4 - These are the dual controller equivalents of 1.2 to 1.4 - 2.1 is called 'Plenty' in Goldeneye. It doesn't have a name in perfect dark.)
For control scheme 2.1, the analog stick on controller 1 is move forward/back and turn left/right. The analog stick on controller 2 is look up/down and strafe left/right.
The Z trigger on controller 1 is Aim, and on controller 2 it's fire.
A on either controller is fire, and B is 'action' (which is the same as 1.1)
Works brilliantly, and probably explains why a similar setup exists on just about every console shooter since. (The dualshock, the first controller with 2 analog sticks was released late 1997 (december)/early 1998, while goldeneye was released August 1997)
Yes, that's right. It's not out of the question to presume the control scheme used by pretty much all modern shooters derives from one of the alternate modes in Goldeneye...
This is the problem for me. Almost all shooters (in fact I can't think of any examples other than GoldenEye and Perfect Dark that use the control scheme you mention) use the left stick for strafing and the right stick for looking (or keyboard and mouse substituting left and right respectively). It's really hard to break that perception of how to move your character, for me at least.CrystalShadow said:For control scheme 2.1, the analog stick on controller 1 is move forward/back and turn left/right. The analog stick on controller 2 is look up/down and strafe left/right.
This. I replayed it a month ago, and it's awful.jhlip said:I would have to say Goldeneye for the N64. Unless you played it when you were young and can only replay it for nostalgic reasons, you will never get someone raised on Halo or COD to ever play it.
Well that's a bit nitpicky when there are 8 control variants in goldeneye, and the dual controller ones aren't the default anyway.GiantRaven said:This is the problem for me. Almost all shooters (in fact I can't think of any examples other than GoldenEye and Perfect Dark that use the control scheme you mention) use the left stick for strafing and the right stick for looking (or keyboard and mouse substituting left and right respectively). It's really hard to break that perception of how to move your character, for me at least.CrystalShadow said:For control scheme 2.1, the analog stick on controller 1 is move forward/back and turn left/right. The analog stick on controller 2 is look up/down and strafe left/right.
Truth. Clunky controls, limited character selection, unbalanced gameplay. It was fun for the time, but damn its sequels just knock it out of the park.ShakesZX said:Super smash bros.
It just can't compare to Melee, let alone Brawl.
I wasn't aware of the other control layouts, so yeah, it definitely doesn't. I might try this out at some point, it sounds like an interesting way to play. I always did like the N64 controller.CrystalShadow said:So... Yeah. Your supposed problem doesn't really exist.
I agree with this statement. Just this past week, I picked up Super Mario 64 again. I didn't intend to play it more than an hour or so, just long enough to satisfy the nostalgia pangs.Arqus_Zed said:Shooters
Also, platformers. I'm not sure why, but good platformers just don't seem to age.
Yeah, I probably should have said Mother 1. I can't play that one because of the random fighting system that is DAMN hard on you for taking more than two steps. The story may be great but I can't play past the first section because of it.Jennacide said:I know the history of the games, I've played all three as well. What I don't get is how they didn't age well, because financially Earthbound didn't do as well as hoped? That is the sole reason Mother 3 never came over here, as well as Mother Zero(the 1+2 combo game on GBA). It had everything to do with money, and nothing to do with being bad games.Gindil said:???Jennacide said:Wow, is this just a sad attempt at being a troll? Earthbound ages just as well as any SNES RPG, and in most facets, it ages even better because it created systems that sucked a lot of the once acceptable grind out of RPGs. (Like the instant death for weaker/surprised mobs)Gindil said:Earthbound. Dare anyone to say that it was good enough to force Nintendo to bring the sequels and original here in the US...
No. You read the history of Mother 1 and Mother 3, and Nintendo didn't bring those over. It had the scratch and sniff campaign for Mother 2(Earthbound) and I'm still bitter that I can't legally own a copy of Mother 3.