Joust sucks at games: Official
Printable View
Joust sucks at games: Official
Joust's first mistake was comparing FPS to strategy games. WTF Joust?
"ie, "in this game I am expected to use the entire army, so just using one character for everything might bite me in the ass later"
Uh, duh, that's the whole point. If you can get through the majority of the game without doing that (which I did, at least with the first one to hit the US GBA, then skipped the rest because they're worthless), then they really didn't design it so that you would use the entire army now, did they? der
"A strategy game with no kind of punishment for doing moronic shit is a worthless stretegy game."
Yeah, PC games seem to have no problem with letting the user retry from before they backed themselves into a corner (ie, restart the current mission). In FE, you're screwed. That's the point. That's bad design. Regardless of whether you like the game or not.
No, you gimp. Didn't you notice how all of a sudden you had to start keeping the rest of the army away from enemies if you did that- and then figure out that you were fucking up?Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
Um, you can restart a level in Fire Emblem just like you can in any other game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
If you didn't notice how you were coming up short more and more for that long then I don't know what to tell you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
lol whatQuote:
"A strategy game with no kind of punishment for doing moronic shit is a worthless stretegy game."
Yeah, PC games seem to have no problem with letting the user retry from before they backed themselves into a corner (ie, restart the current mission). In FE, you're screwed. That's the point. That's bad design. Regardless of whether you like the game or not.
Of course you can restart a mission in Fire Emblem. But yes, it is quite possible to make the game unwinnable if you've been ignoring your army for the entire thing and just generally making stupid moves time after time. Losing because you made a bunch of really stupid choices in a strategy game is not bad design, and the game is still winnable (though not as easy) if you fuck up here and there, but not constantly. Losing a battle because you made a bunch of stupid mistakes within that battle is very easily rectified by reloading it and trying again.
This is also true for PC strategy games with a persistent army, incidentally. If you do stupid shit from the word "go" then the only way you're getting back on track is if you're willing to give up plenty of hours and restart at or near the beginning of the game. Fucking up majorly and consistently in a long-term persistent strategy game can ruin hours worth of progress and I don't care what you're playing.
"But yes, it is quite possible to make the game unwinnable if you've been ignoring your army for the entire thing and just generally making stupid moves time after time."
Ergo, shoddy design. Glad we agree. End of discussion here, folks.
Yeah, if you suck at video games, glad we agree: Joust sucks at video games.
Losing in a strategy game because your strategy sucks is not shoddy design, it's the entire point of the genre. Using a bad strategy = losing, using a good strategy = winning. You should not win despite making dumb choices from the very beginning just because it hurts your feelings to not win.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
Let me guess, you're one of those people who thinks everyone in a competition should get a ribbon with "Participant" on it at the end, aren't you?
Only if he loses does he think everyone should get a ribbon.