Jump to content

NESfiend

Member
  • Posts

    2,392
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3
  • Feedback

    100%

Posts posted by NESfiend

  1. 1 hour ago, Gloves said:

    Almost every part of all 3 games has like a trick where once you see it you go "oh that's dumb, I'd never figure that out" and that's why I'm not huge on them.

     

    Edit: I misread the original quote. I don't know about every level, but yeah, that pretty well describes the frustration. 

  2. I thought about this when I was playing Super Star Wars earlier. NES didn't have many difficulty options, but lots of great SNES games do. I play most of them on easy. Once I can beat it pretty easily there, I move up to the middle setting. From there, I rarely get too far into the game, but have beaten a handful. In addition to the star wars series, some others that come to mind are sunset riders, knights of the round, final fights, and lion king. And most fit into the category, for me, that its too easy on easy and too difficult on the normal setting to be able to beat it without putting in a lot of time/work. I have kind of always assumed I am one of few who plays on easy, but maybe I am wrong. 

    Strangley, for me, its only platformers as I don't alter settings on sports, racing, or head to head fighters like street fighter and mortal combat. 

     

  3. 13 hours ago, jonebone said:

    Yes, this VGS forum has been better than I could have imagined.  It sucks that I've lost all of my NA bookmarks but those are things I'd only reference once in a blue moon anyway.  For day to day activity and knowledge this forum has it all.  The extras functionalities does make NA seem fairly ancient too. 

     

    I agree that the crowd here is great. Also echo how much it sucks that years worth of posts, forums, etc. are completely inaccessible. That really pisses me off. I am warming up to the format here, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't miss NA layout and the way the forums were organized etc. I think it was just easier. Maybe I don't appreciate the extra functionalities because I am a simpleton, especially when it comes to computers/tech. 

  4. 2 hours ago, ThePhleo said:

     

    Thank you. I think I'll hold off on watering the list down...I've also added the "old" rarity guide in there for now for reference, but I do plan on deleting it eventually. It takes a lot of work to make sure the list is fair and there's still a TON of room for improvement...should we have half rankings in the upper tier? quarter or fifths in the 9.0-10 range? what about half rankings for 1.0-2.0? lots of room for improvements.

     

     

    I guess that depends on the strength of your system. I'd say go crazy as long as you are confident its accurate and not debatable/speculative. 

  5. 3 hours ago, ThePhleo said:

    Thanks for the suggestions.

    Some changes I want to make include bumping up Rollergames one more rank...three ranks down seems too much for that title.

    I also wonder how angry people would be if I made this an R1-7 scale...

    Ive been tempted to merge 1&2, 3&4, and 5&6 together but I don’t want to alienate the community.

    Its really hard to maintain a 10 point scale in a satisfying way. The only difference between an R1 and an R2 for example is you go from being nearly guaranteed to having all of them in a lot of say 50 random games to nearly guaranteed to having all of them in a lot of 100 random games.

    I for one plan on using your list as a go to reference and definitely would prefer if you didn't go down to R1-7. If you do do that, I'd suggest/ask you keep this one available as well. 

    I went through R6-9 on your list pretty carefully. Everything here looks really accurate. I have no idea how much work or how long it takes to do that, but I'd love to see one for SNES as well. 

×
×
  • Create New...