My biggest complaint with gaming these days is that its too hard to put down and do a quick save or load to a save state.
Solid snake sucks and will always suck, much like the ps3.
I don't have time for 100hrs of gameplay anymore. RPG's suck if they can't make the grinding interesting at all. FF1(nes) made me constantly think about my moves. While the remake for the GBA was such a snooze fest.
Gaming in general has become too much focused on the money aspect with the DLC and add-on bullshit.
Make good games that have feeling and the money will come. Steam has learned this. The rest of the dumbass market place needs to learn this. "pirates are unserved customers" is an excellent way to do business.
To bash JRPGs some more, it is completely fucking retarded how characters in them almost always wind up with many hundreds, if not thousands of HP.
Really, developers? You really need that much precision? Oh fuck, I did 0.05% less damage this time.
I don't know if you ever played the Breath of Fire series but they managed to avoid this in it. Your characters start out with about 20 HP and by the end of the game they usually range from 250-600 or so.
What do you mean by "minimalist about their presentation"? That they're too melodramatic, or that spell effects are too out there, or something?
Because I do kind of get annoyed when I see Bahamut shoot his hyperbreath from space or when 17-year-old Squall somehow makes lasers come out of his sword and all that shit. It would be easier to relate to your protagonists if their abilities were somewhat realistic.
EDIT: And I loved Megaman Legends - easily one of the better games I played for the Ps1, and much preferable to conventional megaman (although they're really completely different types of games).
Since someone mentioned Fallout, I'm'a gon' go do the equivilent of smacking the hive of you-know-who with a stick:
I think that having real weapons in the Fallout-verse, provided that they're either (A) direct forerunners of canon Fallout equipment and/or (B) newer than 2000 is A-OK.
Well, except maybe the really stupid and annoying shit like the OICW, but I think we can all agree that we've had enough of people beating off to it in general.
Game Informer is a great magazine, with interesting articles and up-to-date news on new IPs.
I love GI. Funny stuff in there, and very informative. I usually agree with a lot of their reviews of the games I enjoy playing. Not that that really matters, but I can tell they put thought in their review process.
On the other hand, I think OXM is complete trash. I think their reviews are all over the damn place, and I never take what they say about any game very seriously.
Review of Dead Space, perfect example.
I think you should give games of a certain genre to reviewers who like and play that genre. I understand the logic of people who aren't fans of a genre liking a game in it, that's a sign the game is made well and can get people who wouldn't normally play it interested, but I just think it backfires too much.
I think it's ridiculous to start off a review "I hate horror games, so I didn't like this game at all. Here's all the reasons why I think it's crap." And then end it saying "But I guess if you're a fan you might like it". Give me a break.
:v:
If a reviewer doesn't play racing games for example, I don't give two shits about his opinion of Race Pro. I want someone who DOES play those games to tell me what's good or bad.
It'd be like me reviewing a new JRPG. Not a fan. Don't have a deep seeded hate for them or anything, just not what I play. My review wouldn't be terribly insightful for RPG nuts waiting to learn more about their next big game.
Lair's motion controls were fine, and analog controls would be (and are, now that they implemented them) dumb and sub par. The game was not that great for other reasons, but the motion controls were completely fine by me and made the game a much better experience.
Heavenly Sword was fun as hell and well worth the 60 bucks I paid for it.
Mass Effect was an unfinished piece of rubbish that looked terrible, played clunky, bored the hell out of me, and was, overall, just plain bad. It was not worth the 20 I paid for it.
Spore was a horrible game. All the hype made it worse. (fable syndrome?)
I would rather have played the version from the demo video than the final product.
I don't think that's unpopular, I'm pretty sure Spore was a massive dissapointment to everyone
Not contesting this, but I am genuinely curious about what was in the demo videos that was then supposedly cut for the final product, that I hear everyone go on about.
Spore was a horrible game. All the hype made it worse. (fable syndrome?)
I would rather have played the version from the demo video than the final product.
I don't think that's unpopular, I'm pretty sure Spore was a massive dissapointment to everyone
Not contesting this, but I am genuinely curious about what was in the demo videos that was then supposedly cut for the final product, that I hear everyone go on about.
Pretty much nothing. The thing is, the demo video was about twenty minutes long and contained the entire game.
Spore was a horrible game. All the hype made it worse. (fable syndrome?)
I would rather have played the version from the demo video than the final product.
I don't think that's unpopular, I'm pretty sure Spore was a massive dissapointment to everyone
Not contesting this, but I am genuinely curious about what was in the demo videos that was then supposedly cut for the final product, that I hear everyone go on about.
I watched the videos ages ago when they first came out, and they were impressive but I thought it was about the same as the final product.
And maybe that was the problem: we saw all that was entertaining about the concept in those first videos, and it really had nowhere else to go. Will Wright used the creature creator, mixed and match parts and it generated animations on the fly. So amazing. Then he went to war with some other creatures, wow, it's also a broader civilization sim. And he ended up in space flying to other planets and blowing them up. Awesome.
People thought that was just a taste, they didn't know he was showing us the whole game.
Starcraft 2 better fucking have most of the options that supreme commander did or I will be pissed.
These are unpopular opinions.
What options are you thinking of here?
Not that I necessarily disagree, I think SupCom was an awesome game. SupCom's interface was really well implemented, but the things they implemented that were different from other RTS's were mainly there because of the large scale nature of the game. Large / permanent build queues, the ability to queue up relatively complex and long sequences of orders, strategic zoom, default fire and movement control orders... I can't see those really being adapted to the style of game that Starcraft is, where it's almost all about micromanagement of small forces.
All that said, I'm glad GPG are working on SupCom 2, and I'm looking forward to what they might be able to achieve with it.
The gameplay lacked any kind of the challenge which is a hallmark of the DMC series.
I should mention that I find any games intended for "hardcore users only" to be repulsive.
And really, there are no winners when you discuss Devil May Cry and plot in any capacity. There are only tears of failure.
DMC isn't for hardcore users only though. There's an easy mode, and the normal mode isn't particularly hard, especially in the US version. Only the hard mode and DMD become unfair.
It's....
How do I explain this?
It's like if I played Gradius, but I could only ever beat the game with a 20 continues cheat. Barring the fact that I would get enormously frustrated and turn the damn thing off, everybody still knows who the game was made for, y'know? It just seems like a lot of the combat was made with cheap hits in mind. I don't mind challenge in my games, but DMC2 negated some of the cheapness of the combat.
Plus I enjoyed the whole Resident Evil 2 aspect of it, being able to play through twice and see new things.
Oh yeah, another probably unpopular opinion: While it's mostly a good game, I couldn't ever beat RE4, as the controls and camera just pissed me off beyond belief. Not being able to move while I aim is fucking stupid. The camera was also way too freaking tight and the whole thing controlled like ass. Despite getting rid of the tank controls of previous REs, I still felt like I was controlling a tank.
The gameplay lacked any kind of the challenge which is a hallmark of the DMC series.
I should mention that I find any games intended for "hardcore users only" to be repulsive.
And really, there are no winners when you discuss Devil May Cry and plot in any capacity. There are only tears of failure.
DMC isn't for hardcore users only though. There's an easy mode, and the normal mode isn't particularly hard, especially in the US version. Only the hard mode and DMD become unfair.
It's....
How do I explain this?
It's like if I played Gradius, but I could only ever beat the game with a 20 continues cheat. Barring the fact that I would get enormously frustrated and turn the damn thing off, everybody still knows who the game was made for, y'know? It just seems like a lot of the combat was made with cheap hits in mind. I don't mind challenge in my games, but DMC2 negated some of the cheapness of the combat.
The thing is, you don't need to cheat on easy mode. And I really have to disagree that the combat is "cheap". The system is actually pretty fair, and if you watch what the pro players pull off you can see that the attacks have their indicators and wind ups, and there are ways to deal with them.
This is coming from a someone who's never before played a DMC game until I got DMC 4. For the PC. Which ought to give you an idea how much experience I've had with this style of game (outside of the odd game in an arcade, not much).
I'll admit it was tough at first, but once you begin to understand the combat mechanics, the game just flows. With no experience of the series or the genre, I actually managed to work my way up the difficulty chain and finish Hell or Hell difficulty. Which is where if you get hit once you're knocked out, 3 times and you're out.
I'm a person who's primary métier is strategy games, RPG's and FPS's. If even I can manage that, then it's a pretty good indicator to me that the gameplay isn't only accessible for the hardcore.
Spore was a horrible game. All the hype made it worse. (fable syndrome?)
I would rather have played the version from the demo video than the final product.
I don't think that's unpopular, I'm pretty sure Spore was a massive dissapointment to everyone
Not contesting this, but I am genuinely curious about what was in the demo videos that was then supposedly cut for the final product, that I hear everyone go on about.
Pretty much nothing. The thing is, the demo video was about twenty minutes long and contained the entire game.
No, there were a few really important things in the video that were missing from the game.
Plant editor was cut.
There was no aquatic animal stage made a rough transition between cell and creature. It made the cell stage entirely unimportant. The decisions you made had no bearing on the next choice because you could always pull every part off and start again in one generation. It didn't make any sense. Then when it came time to move your cell on to land, you'd staple on limbs and this giant amoeba would walk out with fully articulated legs. It made no sense but even worse was that there was no sense of direction or accomplishment.
Tribal - They cut the hut editor (tribal wasn't really shown) I get the feeling tribal was going to be pretty lame anyway. Not important.
City - Planned to be a full-fledged mode to make the transition between tribal and civ. Axed and replaced with a non-sensical transition and a premade city layout where you could 3 types of buildings buildings into designated spots.
Civ - It was unclear how you were supposed to win the civ game from the demo, but it showed the player purchasing a UFO instead of being awarded it for no reason.
I guess the only part of the video that wasn't misleading was the depiction of the space stage, which was, as you said, exactly what we got. So you're right there.
FF X-2 is a top 10 game of it's generation.
FF 7 has gone from overrated to vastly underrated.
I'd buy a game set in Everquest's world with FFXII's interface/mechanics in a heartbeat.
That said, FFXII was really boring.
Mario Galaxy is a good enough reason to buy a Wii.
Oh yeah, another probably unpopular opinion: While it's mostly a good game, I couldn't ever beat RE4, as the controls and camera just pissed me off beyond belief. Not being able to move while I aim is fucking stupid. The camera was also way too freaking tight and the whole thing controlled like ass. Despite getting rid of the tank controls of previous REs, I still felt like I was controlling a tank.
I know where you're coming from but realistically speaking you couldn't hit the broadside of a barn if you were running and shooting at the same time
That was more directed at comments like KKprofit's, that you quoted
I would rather have played the version from the demo video than the final product.
Because in the demo version he promised that new actions could be generated on the fly for one. For example if you told him to bite and move... you would create a new verb, to drag. I don't think even that action made it into the final game... but aside from that, that kind of depth to controlling the actions of your creature is not there. Its strictly a point and click kind of affair.
KKprofit on
0
ViscountalphaThe pen is mightier than the swordhttp://youtu.be/G_sBOsh-vyIRegistered Userregular
Oh yeah, another probably unpopular opinion: While it's mostly a good game, I couldn't ever beat RE4, as the controls and camera just pissed me off beyond belief. Not being able to move while I aim is fucking stupid. The camera was also way too freaking tight and the whole thing controlled like ass. Despite getting rid of the tank controls of previous REs, I still felt like I was controlling a tank.
I know where you're coming from but realistically speaking you couldn't hit the broadside of a barn if you were running and shooting at the same time
being annoyed about not being able to run and gun is like being annoyed about having to reload your guns or the breifcase or whatever other balancing element you can think of
either you run away and you don't get to fight back or you stand and fight and you can't move. it's not so much inspired by realism as a mechanism to let the (primarily) scythe-weilding zombies a chance to pose a threat to a person with a suitcase full of powerful, ranged weapons
"pirates are unserved customers" is an excellent way to do business.
Ahahahaha, no it isn't.
Between steam and a draconian DRM scheme(SECURom is a good example), I'll take steam any day. But, Like I said earlier- I have unpopular opinions.
Yeah I'd say that Valve's attitude of NOT shunning the market altogether has helped them make more money than they would have otherwise.
If you read the interview that quote came from, Valve were basically talking about how their piracy rates dropped significantly in Russia once they started you know, RELEASING their games there, with simultaneous releases as opposed to 6-18 months down the line. Valve were one of the first major Western publishers to show there was genuinely a market worth pursuing in Russia. This at a time when all the other western publishers and devs were largely taking the stance of "Screw Russia they're all pirates anyway".
Ultima Online was NOT the golden age of MMO games. It could be fun, but it dead-ended in a lot of places where it was suppose to innovate- including in PVP; which basically became "play this one uber-build or be left behind". PVP was often too easy for some, too difficult for others, and both are the kiss of death to a game like that.
Simplifying and opening up new options is not necessarily "dumbing down." Creating systems that are intuitive and build upon themselves to grow in complexity mimic how most people learn in real life. People who like games to be easy to pick up and enjoy early on are not lazy or stupid. People who do not wish to wall themselves up in a basement somewhere with bottles of "Mana Potion" energy shots and bags of spicy cheetoes are not stupid, lazy or lacking in the ability to "pwn". They just see the game as something fun to do when they are not working, socializing, getting out of the house; as opposed to seeing the game as a full time career that will one day lead them to join a professional gaming league where they will suddenly become in-shape, handsome, smart, wise, well-read, well-rounded, socially capable and incredibly irresistible to the opposite (or otherwise desired) sex.
I want to have your children.
dasnoob on
0
ViscountalphaThe pen is mightier than the swordhttp://youtu.be/G_sBOsh-vyIRegistered Userregular
"pirates are unserved customers" is an excellent way to do business.
Ahahahaha, no it isn't.
Between steam and a draconian DRM scheme(SECURom is a good example), I'll take steam any day. But, Like I said earlier- I have unpopular opinions.
Yeah I'd say that Valve's attitude of NOT shunning the market altogether has helped them make more money than they would have otherwise.
If you read the interview that quote came from, Valve were basically talking about how their piracy rates dropped significantly in Russia once they started you know, RELEASING their games there, with simultaneous releases as opposed to 6-18 months down the line. Valve were one of the first major Western publishers to show there was genuinely a market worth pursuing in Russia. This at a time when all the other western publishers and devs were largely taking the stance of "Screw Russia they're all pirates anyway".
I modified my post to include that for tube. I think about halo 3 right now and how they are screwing over their fanbase right now just to sell more copies of halo wars.They are sitting on map packs that they want to pack in with the special edition. It feels like some of these companies don't give a shit about trying to keep their fans. I feel shunned and am a bit pissed because some analyst thinks that this is a good idea.
Not only was Chrono Cross a good sequel and an outstanding game on its own (not quite an unpopular opinion), but it was better than Chrono Trigger in almost every regard. I also didn't mind the massive character roster and thought it to be better implemented than the original Suikoden (which magazines kept comparing it to back in the day).
Both Secret of Mana and Seiken Densetsu 3 are horribly over-rated, though I do still like SoM. I also found Sword of Mana to be a perfectly acceptable game that did most of what people were demanding for the series.
I thought Unlimited SaGa wasn't a bad game. In fact, I thought it was a good game once you learned the game mechanics.
Lastly, I think Fire Emblem: The Sacred Stones was probably the best of the GBA Fire Emblems, or at least on par with the first US one. It's definitely better than The Binding Blade.
Puzzle Quest is a horrible, punishing game and fuck fuck fuck the developer
Couldn't agree with this more. When I heard about this it sounded right up my alley, so I tried it out. It's just plain terrible and the AI cheats like a bastard. I recently tried out the flash demo of Galactrix to see if I could finally figure out why people like this game. Nope, still just as terrible and random as ever.
This game is the anti-fun, the nega-fun. It is the antidote to fun
That was more directed at comments like KKprofit's, that you quoted
I would rather have played the version from the demo video than the final product.
Because in the demo version he promised that new actions could be generated on the fly for one. For example if you told him to bite and move... you would create a new verb, to drag. I don't think even that action made it into the final game... but aside from that, that kind of depth to controlling the actions of your creature is not there. Its strictly a point and click kind of affair.
There was also you know the fact that you actually EVOLVED your creature instead of buying parts for it willy-nilly
Posts
I would rather have played the version from the demo video than the final product.
Little Big Planet is boring.
Critical Failures - Havenhold Campaign • August St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
What do you mean by "minimalist about their presentation"? That they're too melodramatic, or that spell effects are too out there, or something?
Because I do kind of get annoyed when I see Bahamut shoot his hyperbreath from space or when 17-year-old Squall somehow makes lasers come out of his sword and all that shit. It would be easier to relate to your protagonists if their abilities were somewhat realistic.
EDIT: And I loved Megaman Legends - easily one of the better games I played for the Ps1, and much preferable to conventional megaman (although they're really completely different types of games).
I don't like Warhawk...there, I said it.
I just can't seem to enjoy it, and I've tried.:|
I don't think that's unpopular, I'm pretty sure Spore was a massive dissapointment to everyone
...
Maybe this should go in "Doing it wrong."
I think that having real weapons in the Fallout-verse, provided that they're either (A) direct forerunners of canon Fallout equipment and/or (B) newer than 2000 is A-OK.
I love GI. Funny stuff in there, and very informative. I usually agree with a lot of their reviews of the games I enjoy playing. Not that that really matters, but I can tell they put thought in their review process.
On the other hand, I think OXM is complete trash. I think their reviews are all over the damn place, and I never take what they say about any game very seriously.
Review of Dead Space, perfect example.
I think you should give games of a certain genre to reviewers who like and play that genre. I understand the logic of people who aren't fans of a genre liking a game in it, that's a sign the game is made well and can get people who wouldn't normally play it interested, but I just think it backfires too much.
I think it's ridiculous to start off a review "I hate horror games, so I didn't like this game at all. Here's all the reasons why I think it's crap." And then end it saying "But I guess if you're a fan you might like it". Give me a break.
:v:
If a reviewer doesn't play racing games for example, I don't give two shits about his opinion of Race Pro. I want someone who DOES play those games to tell me what's good or bad.
It'd be like me reviewing a new JRPG. Not a fan. Don't have a deep seeded hate for them or anything, just not what I play. My review wouldn't be terribly insightful for RPG nuts waiting to learn more about their next big game.
I'd like to nominate this for the winner of the "most unpopular opinion in the 'your unpopular opinion' thread."
Heavenly Sword was fun as hell and well worth the 60 bucks I paid for it.
Mass Effect was an unfinished piece of rubbish that looked terrible, played clunky, bored the hell out of me, and was, overall, just plain bad. It was not worth the 20 I paid for it.
Not contesting this, but I am genuinely curious about what was in the demo videos that was then supposedly cut for the final product, that I hear everyone go on about.
Pretty much nothing. The thing is, the demo video was about twenty minutes long and contained the entire game.
I watched the videos ages ago when they first came out, and they were impressive but I thought it was about the same as the final product.
And maybe that was the problem: we saw all that was entertaining about the concept in those first videos, and it really had nowhere else to go. Will Wright used the creature creator, mixed and match parts and it generated animations on the fly. So amazing. Then he went to war with some other creatures, wow, it's also a broader civilization sim. And he ended up in space flying to other planets and blowing them up. Awesome.
People thought that was just a taste, they didn't know he was showing us the whole game.
What options are you thinking of here?
Not that I necessarily disagree, I think SupCom was an awesome game. SupCom's interface was really well implemented, but the things they implemented that were different from other RTS's were mainly there because of the large scale nature of the game. Large / permanent build queues, the ability to queue up relatively complex and long sequences of orders, strategic zoom, default fire and movement control orders... I can't see those really being adapted to the style of game that Starcraft is, where it's almost all about micromanagement of small forces.
All that said, I'm glad GPG are working on SupCom 2, and I'm looking forward to what they might be able to achieve with it.
Now THAT's bound to be an unpopular opinion. :P
It's....
How do I explain this?
It's like if I played Gradius, but I could only ever beat the game with a 20 continues cheat. Barring the fact that I would get enormously frustrated and turn the damn thing off, everybody still knows who the game was made for, y'know? It just seems like a lot of the combat was made with cheap hits in mind. I don't mind challenge in my games, but DMC2 negated some of the cheapness of the combat.
Plus I enjoyed the whole Resident Evil 2 aspect of it, being able to play through twice and see new things.
Ka-Chung!
Ka-Chung!
The thing is, you don't need to cheat on easy mode. And I really have to disagree that the combat is "cheap". The system is actually pretty fair, and if you watch what the pro players pull off you can see that the attacks have their indicators and wind ups, and there are ways to deal with them.
This is coming from a someone who's never before played a DMC game until I got DMC 4. For the PC. Which ought to give you an idea how much experience I've had with this style of game (outside of the odd game in an arcade, not much).
I'll admit it was tough at first, but once you begin to understand the combat mechanics, the game just flows. With no experience of the series or the genre, I actually managed to work my way up the difficulty chain and finish Hell or Hell difficulty. Which is where if you get hit once you're knocked out, 3 times and you're out.
I'm a person who's primary métier is strategy games, RPG's and FPS's. If even I can manage that, then it's a pretty good indicator to me that the gameplay isn't only accessible for the hardcore.
No, there were a few really important things in the video that were missing from the game.
Plant editor was cut.
There was no aquatic animal stage made a rough transition between cell and creature. It made the cell stage entirely unimportant. The decisions you made had no bearing on the next choice because you could always pull every part off and start again in one generation. It didn't make any sense. Then when it came time to move your cell on to land, you'd staple on limbs and this giant amoeba would walk out with fully articulated legs. It made no sense but even worse was that there was no sense of direction or accomplishment.
Tribal - They cut the hut editor (tribal wasn't really shown) I get the feeling tribal was going to be pretty lame anyway. Not important.
City - Planned to be a full-fledged mode to make the transition between tribal and civ. Axed and replaced with a non-sensical transition and a premade city layout where you could 3 types of buildings buildings into designated spots.
Civ - It was unclear how you were supposed to win the civ game from the demo, but it showed the player purchasing a UFO instead of being awarded it for no reason.
I guess the only part of the video that wasn't misleading was the depiction of the space stage, which was, as you said, exactly what we got. So you're right there.
FF 7 has gone from overrated to vastly underrated.
I'd buy a game set in Everquest's world with FFXII's interface/mechanics in a heartbeat.
That said, FFXII was really boring.
Mario Galaxy is a good enough reason to buy a Wii.
I know where you're coming from but realistically speaking you couldn't hit the broadside of a barn if you were running and shooting at the same time
Because in the demo version he promised that new actions could be generated on the fly for one. For example if you told him to bite and move... you would create a new verb, to drag. I don't think even that action made it into the final game... but aside from that, that kind of depth to controlling the actions of your creature is not there. Its strictly a point and click kind of affair.
Between steam and a draconian DRM scheme(SECURom is a good example), I'll take steam any day. But, Like I said earlier- I have unpopular opinions.
I'll also make this personal for you Tube,
http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/news/valve-pirates-are-just-underserved-customers/?biz=1&page=2
So, would other people in the EU/UK be less likely to pirate software if it was out all at the same time around the world?
being annoyed about not being able to run and gun is like being annoyed about having to reload your guns or the breifcase or whatever other balancing element you can think of
either you run away and you don't get to fight back or you stand and fight and you can't move. it's not so much inspired by realism as a mechanism to let the (primarily) scythe-weilding zombies a chance to pose a threat to a person with a suitcase full of powerful, ranged weapons
Yeah I'd say that Valve's attitude of NOT shunning the market altogether has helped them make more money than they would have otherwise.
If you read the interview that quote came from, Valve were basically talking about how their piracy rates dropped significantly in Russia once they started you know, RELEASING their games there, with simultaneous releases as opposed to 6-18 months down the line. Valve were one of the first major Western publishers to show there was genuinely a market worth pursuing in Russia. This at a time when all the other western publishers and devs were largely taking the stance of "Screw Russia they're all pirates anyway".
I want to have your children.
I modified my post to include that for tube. I think about halo 3 right now and how they are screwing over their fanbase right now just to sell more copies of halo wars.They are sitting on map packs that they want to pack in with the special edition. It feels like some of these companies don't give a shit about trying to keep their fans. I feel shunned and am a bit pissed because some analyst thinks that this is a good idea.
DDR is vastly inferior to Pump it up. :P
This isn't an opinion--it's a fact. Pump it Up has 'Beethoven's Virus' after all. :P
Both Secret of Mana and Seiken Densetsu 3 are horribly over-rated, though I do still like SoM. I also found Sword of Mana to be a perfectly acceptable game that did most of what people were demanding for the series.
I thought Unlimited SaGa wasn't a bad game. In fact, I thought it was a good game once you learned the game mechanics.
Lastly, I think Fire Emblem: The Sacred Stones was probably the best of the GBA Fire Emblems, or at least on par with the first US one. It's definitely better than The Binding Blade.
Couldn't agree with this more. When I heard about this it sounded right up my alley, so I tried it out. It's just plain terrible and the AI cheats like a bastard. I recently tried out the flash demo of Galactrix to see if I could finally figure out why people like this game. Nope, still just as terrible and random as ever.
This game is the anti-fun, the nega-fun. It is the antidote to fun
there, I made my opinion out of yours
There was also you know the fact that you actually EVOLVED your creature instead of buying parts for it willy-nilly