The VG Resource

Speaking of fighting games, I cannot get over how bad Brutal 32X is. Just... yikes.

Going back to play the SNES version of Brutal: Paws of Fury, I play it and, you know, it's not actually a bad game. I mean, not great, but I liked the fact it had its own identity as a fighting game. Yes, it did just jump on the Anthro bandwagon of the time, and the anthro characters in the game are butt-ugly with the exception of maybe Foxy and Ivan (arguably even them, though they look cleaner), but I liked it's unique feature of having to learn moves. It never caught on (probably for a good reason) but it did add a nice bit of replay value, and while the Kata moves were mostly useless, it was still fun trying to learn them. I also didn't mind it's calm, neutral Asian music. As far as gameplay goes, meh, it's a little rough around the edges, but there's enough polish that it can still be enjoyable. Yeah, the AI gets pretty cheap later on, but you will likely have your own cheap moves to use. Doesn't mean you can spam them, but still. Overall, it's not Street Fighter, and I really wouldn't reccomend it to most people, but...

...It's still miles ahead of Brutal Unleashed/32X. I mean, Brutal 32X is a complete catastrophy of a game. You tell me a bad fighting game, I'll show you this one. There's new characters, and while the mole-dragon is kind of cool, the other new characters are just as hideous as the old ones. On a new system, they couldn't even have updated the sprites. Plus, the mature Asian music was replaced with hokey electronic music designed to be edgey or something. The gameplay doesn't even feel like an officially released fighting game, heck I've played PIRATED fighting games with more polish than this! It's hard for me to explain, but the engine shows no common sense or regard for what a good fighting game should play like. Stiff, eratic, cheap, and just all around terrible. All the problems with the first game got WORSE. And unlike the SNES game which starts out managable in difficulty until the later levels where the enemies get cheap, this game starts out cheap right off the bat. Laughably this game gives you several different difficulty levels, and there's barely any difference between them. The graphics are awful too, giving you the same exact backgrounds, but having smaller characters. The 32X was capable of bigger, cleaner sprites and the makers of Brutal 32X made no effort in trying to make use of that. Plus, compare the Battlements stage in the SNES game to the one in this game. The SNES version looked fine, but the 32X version looks grainy, almost like the screen glitched up. Just awful, really. Ultimately, this game spelled the doom for a franchise that already didn't have much potential, but this game was its gravemaker.

Hella controversial one here, but definitely Legend of Zelda: Link’s Awakening for me.


See, the dungeons of almost any Zelda game tend to be the most boring parts for me, but the entire overworld felt like one giant dungeon; it wasn’t that fun to explore, and aside from the obviously required things you need to do to get the next dungeon, there was not much to really do outside of collecting heart pieces, and what little there was to do, typically wasn’t worth it, except maybe the sword upgrade. This made the whole game a drag to play.

And the actual dungeons themselves were so awful, especially that one volcanic dungeon (don’t remember it’s actual name, not really sure I care either). the only dungeon I liked was the color dungeon, which, ironically enough, was probably one of my favorite dungeons in not just the game, but the whole series, IIRC (it's been a while).

Oh, and don’t even get me started on the damn fetch quest. They’re never fun for me, but this game takes the cake, IMO.

TL;DR, I didn’t find very much of this game fun at all, and I can’t help but feel most of the praise this game gets is fueled by nostalgia. I had a blast when I got to the Oracle games, however.

I think... I think I just died a little reading that...

Zelda in general is boring af for me too, the only one I truly enjoyed was Ocarina of Time because it was challenging enough to keep me interested and easy enough to not confuse me with cryptic shit. I'm not into exploring that much

(05-09-2017, 12:04 AM)rty88 Wrote: [ -> ]Hella controversial one here, but definitely Legend of Zelda: Link’s Awakening for me.


See, the dungeons of almost any Zelda game tend to be the most boring parts for me, but the entire overworld felt like one giant dungeon; it wasn’t that fun to explore, and aside from the obviously required things you need to do to get the next dungeon, there was not much to really do outside of collecting heart pieces, and what little there was to do, typically wasn’t worth it, except maybe the sword upgrade. This made the whole game a drag to play.

And the actual dungeons themselves were so awful, especially that one volcanic dungeon (don’t remember it’s actual name, not really sure I care either). the only dungeon I liked was the color dungeon, which, ironically enough, was probably one of my favorite dungeons in not just the game, but the whole series, IIRC (it's been a while).

Oh, and don’t even get me started on the damn fetch quest. They’re never fun for me, but this game takes the cake, IMO.

TL;DR, I didn’t find very much of this game fun at all, and I can’t help but feel most of the praise this game gets is fueled by nostalgia. I had a blast when I got to the Oracle games, however.

HOW FUCKING DARE- nah it's cool dawg

I still love it and I still replay it and it's still my favourite Zelda, but yeah, at least a little bit of it is nostalgia-goggles since it was my first Zelda.

It's quite funny, though. I love the game but find the colour dungeon kinda underwhelming, and you feel the opposite. I'm wondering if other people on both sides of the "love the game/hate the game" argument feel the same way?

I think my first Zelda was Link's Awakening, and as a kid I got stuck in the Dark World in Link to the Past - but oh man do I love that game.

Link Between Worlds was also really damn good.

I dunno, I mean everything ages - Super Metroid is bloody brilliant but I can imagine some of it being annoying/dull to people playing it now for the first time.

(05-10-2017, 06:45 PM)Goemar Wrote: [ -> ]I dunno, I mean everything ages - Super Metroid is bloody brilliant but I can imagine some of it being annoying/dull to people playing it now for the first time.

literally me
Thankfully I gave it another shot much later and instantly fell in love with it

(05-10-2017, 06:45 PM)Goemar Wrote: [ -> ]I dunno, I mean everything ages - Super Metroid is bloody brilliant but I can imagine some of it being annoying/dull to people playing it now for the first time.

I played Super Metroid for the first time just a couple of years back on the Wii U, and let me tell you, I was amazed and smitten with every lovely second of it.

Oh phew, I saw Super Metroid mentioned here and immediately assumed the worst about all of you. I'm glad to know the thread title mislead me.

Yeah don't get me wrong, I love that game. Like the crazy panic of the intro and then the utterly amazing atmosphere when your ship first touches down on Zebes, like holy crap when I first played it - it was just something else, a feeling I don't think a game has given me before or since.

But at the same time, and with how polished and refined say Zero Mission is (even though I don't think it's a better game) I can see why some of what blew my mind back then might not have as big an impact.

I guess it's the same with Mario 64 - how the 'Holy crap this is Mario in 3D' awesomeness at the time probably doesn't happen for new players now...

I've always preferred Metroid Fusion and Prime a bit more than Super Metroid. The atmosphere is better with more varied and interesting environments and better sound design in both. Super Metroid's controls are also too floaty for my liking.

The only issue I will agree with all the way is that Fusion is too linear. It's strong aspects out weigh it's weaker ones imo.

Prime I don't particularly have complaints aside from collecting the Chocolate Artifacts which was eh.

What do you more seasoned Metroid fans think of AM2R? After Super Metroid I went on a bit of a binge and played Fusion straight through and started up Metroid II and was having a blast with it (IMO, I like it more than Fusion), but stopped for a weekend and felt... completely lost when I booted it back up, so I didn't bother. AM2R looks fantastic though. Any opinions?

(05-12-2017, 01:34 PM)Cloud6625 Wrote: [ -> ]Prime I don't particularly have complaints aside from collecting the Chocolate Artifacts which was eh.

Now I kinda want to see a mod of the game that turns all the Chozo Artifacts into Kit-Kat bars

"We then broke the Kit-Kat bar, and hid its pieces across Tallon..."

(Also Kriven AM2R is fantastico I highly recommend)

(05-12-2017, 01:34 PM)Cloud6625 Wrote: [ -> ]I've always preferred Metroid Fusion and Prime a bit more than Super Metroid. The atmosphere is better with more varied and interesting environments and better sound design in both. Super Metroid's controls are also too floaty for my liking.

The only issue I will agree with all the way is that Fusion is too linear. It's strong aspects out weigh it's weaker ones imo.

Prime I don't particularly have complaints aside from collecting the Chocolate Artifacts which was eh.

I cannot finish Metroid Fusion on GBA even with action-replay and full invincible Samus ... the last boss (crow form of M after cell destroy) doesn't want die... dunno why ...

I dislike games that cannot be finished without cheating ... I hate games I cannot finish with cheating...

You do know you're SUPPOSED to get hit at some point during the start of that fight (with invincibility cheat turned off btw). SA-X Samus will then jump in and attempt to attack the evolved Metroid before getting hit, itself, and allowing you to absorb and regain your original powers, allowing you to actually take the boss down like normal.