Well, it's two games, and I started them early December because I wanted to play them next. I thought we already discussed how the contest should NOT influence decisions on what games get played? Should I just stuff my December playtime with filler to bulk up the 2017 numbers instead? That doesn't sound like a fun way to game.
Part of the reason why the games have straggled a bit is because I like to play different games during the week compared to the weekend. And even when I game on the weekend, I usually only do it in the evening. Hollow Knight & Metal Gear are my current weekend games.
We discussed it, but suzy set the rules and decided the cut off would be like the last two weeks, I think? I mean it's not like you're missing out on a chance to own six-player X-Men if these two games aren't counted. A line has to be drawn at some point. I'm sure there are people who think anything from 2017 at all should be excluded.
Herr Braun is perhaps the world's leading expert in laser weaponry, and his presence in the Kavango means that the Soviet bloc is planning some sort of laser mission.
I mean, yeah, that was already a compromise to begin with, now people want a compromise on the compromise? This thread is already 8 pages deep and half of it is just haggling about the rules, can we just accept them and move on? It's not that big a deal. Play exactly what you want to play, and if it's eligible, report it here. If you feel there's a chance you might be first or you want to make the top 5 and it motivates you to finish more games, that's awesome! In my understanding, that's the point of this thread (that and discussing the games a bit). But we're not debating voter eligibility and the electoral college here.
Uncharted: Golden Abyss (PS Vita) - Honestly, I was never interested in this series in general, and the only reason I've played this one is because a cartridge with the game was given me for free by a guy who sold me his console, and people hype it as kind of an "the title that fully shows off Vita capabilities". I must admit that for portable system, the game looks pretty damn impressive even to this day - on par with PS3 graphics or something you expect from Switch. The game itself is a standard Tomb Raider-esque affair, though - climb a little, shoot a little, watch some cutscenes, move on; there's not much in terms of elaborate setpieces you expect from franchise. A lot of silly gimmicky minigames like "aim your Vita at the sun for 5 seconds" or "rub the rear touchpad", which wasn't really that fun even back in the "blow into microphone" Nintendo DS era. Plot is dumb and riddled with cliches, but good voice acting and chemistry between the characters save the thing. Oh, and there's a crapton of collectibles, though they're all useless gameplay-wise.
Overall, aside the novelty of playing something that looks and plays like PS3 title on your Vita, it's hardly a must-have title - there are dozens of games exactly like this one. Really, if you want a "benchmark title" for Vita with decent gameplay and lots of replay value (as well as an active online community), buy Killzone: Mercenary, it's a pretty good handheld AAA title.
Last Edit: Jan 12, 2018 19:31:01 GMT -5 by nerdybat
I will abide by whatever decision results, but the original 2016 thread was formed for the purpose of encouraging people to stick with and finish games. The rules, as they stand, are actively pushing me AWAY from sticking with Hollow Knight because it's "wasted time" that won't count for anything. It's a little bit backwards.
That's kind of backwards thinking, man. Why let this contest stop you from finishing it?
It's more that the rules discourage people from participating in contest, if putting it that way. As I said before, for something "primarly for fun", the rules are a bit too strict, and some of them don't make any real sense. Not only that, but they're also poorly balanced. If it's a "for fun" activity, a good chunk of those rules can easily be removed without doing any harm to anybody; if it's a contest, they should be rewritten anyway, since some of them put particular gamers into too much of disadvantage for no good reason. Something like that .з.
But then if all those are removed, others will complain that it's unfair to them in some other way. There's really no way to please everybody.
Honestly, the only ones I expect to complain are those who have a significant advantage by default (people who play a lot of NES/Arcade games, for example) - while rebalancing almost always leads to some kinds of complaints, I don't see how evening the odds between people who prefer shorter games or longer ones would be a bad or unfair thing. Besides, as I said before, a couple of rules are somewhat designed to "nerf" the fighting game fans - I mean, why 40-minute long arcade games can be easily claimed through credit-feeding, but fighting games should be grinded over and over again with different characters? I don't see how beating a fighting game with at 3-4 characters is any easier than beating a challenging arcade game with "stage amount x 2" credits, considering often overpowered final bosses and different mechanics each character brings into the game. 15 characters is a ridiculous number.
I don't mind strict rules, it's just that they're pointlessly strict, in my opinion - all the obvious problems in the way the contest is balanced are making this kind of strictness obsolete.
Last Edit: Jan 13, 2018 2:58:00 GMT -5 by nerdybat
Post by Son of Suzy Creamcheese on Jan 13, 2018 5:45:57 GMT -5
These rules were constructed to be as 'average' as possible, since there were people pleading for both strict and lenient rules. That by default makes them not perfect, and I myself don't even like some of the rules.
The thing is though, making them too lax means that there is pretty much no point in tracking this stuff anymore, and making them too strict makes it way too serious, and this kind of contest can never be fully fair if you take it too seriously anyway. I know the compromise is going to annoy some people on some points, but just try to see this thing as lighthearted as possible.
And it's only the second week of January, so it's always possible to assign points based on playtime later on. But think about it. If you DON'T do it, the contest will favor those who play a lot of short games, and if DO implement it, it's going to favor those who have the most free time. So all it does is make it more serious, but I don't think it'll make it much more fair. But again, it's always something that can be added.
The fighting game things is simply because fighting games work different in how their content is distributed. Instead of being constructed of several stages, the different 'challenges' are learning the characters to become good enough to beat the game with them. Keep in mind that nothing is stopping you from just playing it with a few characters on the easiest setting if you're having trouble getting to the amount.
As for games not counting if you started them too early in 2017...yeah, it's too bad, but please don't base your decision to finish any of these on this thread! I think you'd agree that there has to be SOME cut-off point, and I myself am missing out on two or three games that I started right before the cut-off date.
As for Sim games. I honestly don't play a lot of these, so I'm not the person to ask this. Please just use your best judgment if you play one of these. But isn't it impossible to get a game over on Transport Tycoon though? I thought you could always keep going even if you suck at it?
Now Playing: Metroid Zero Mission (GBA) / Splatoon 2 (NSW)
For cutoff date, I'd argue that a date itself is not required so much as the 50% criteria; we don't naturally play games separated by year boundaries. 'Oops it's January' is a certifiably silly reason to exclude a game. But I can agree to drop the discussion; it'll still count in my heart
In RRT you can definitely go bankrupt. When I get to TTD, I'll try to play it very poorly to see what happens. There's certainly a limit on how much you can borrow. I can imagine if your maintenance costs are too high for the revenue you are brining in, that you would lose.