I love how all these classic titles are coming back, like a reminder on how to make good games.
[URL]http://www.gametrailers.com/game/10340.html[/URL]
Two worries about this game:
1. Game Length. Hopefully it isn't too short.
and
2. Tiredness. I don't want to be ****ing winded having to punch the **** out of Glass Joe.
just a stupid rehash of a game that's already out there
why would i buy this when i already have punch-out on NES i mean jeez it's just some shinier graphics
yeah punch-out was definitely a good game
oh look he's flashing, guess i'll press left then mash A and B then repeat 9 times until i reach tyson and just give up because ******* that nigga is broken
I beat Mike Tyson in I Wanna Be The Guy.
Where he breathes fire.
Wii boxing wasn't tiring, and you likely won't be flailing around in this game, so that shouldn't be an issue. Either way, looks pretty solid. Though hopefully it's a discount title. Can't imagine it being more than a couple hours in length. Maybe it'll have online, but that will likely be laggy as ****.
It probably uses buttons instead of gestures.
In after retard(s) judge(s) a game's worth by how long it takes to complete on a single perfect playthrough.
Sorry, dude. But I'm not 8 anymore where I can sit in front of a game and play the same single-player over and over and over again. That lost its appeal ages ago. Punch-Out just isn't worth 50 bucks unless there's a heck of a lot more to pad out the experience.
And in my opinion it'll be unfortunate if they don't include waggle. The basic mechanics of Wii Boxing is fairly solid, and where better to apply that and flesh it out than in Punch-Out?
But I wouldn't be surprised if they don't. Just look at the Mario baseball game.
He punches too fast for it to be based on gestures. If there are gestures then there will also be the ability to use buttons (which they based the trailer off of), since the game only requires 2 buttons anyway.
[quote=Vampiro V. Empire;889033]Sorry, dude. But I'm not 8 anymore where I can sit in front of a game and play the same single-player over and over and over again. That lost its appeal ages ago. Punch-Out just isn't worth 50 bucks unless there's a heck of a lot more to pad out the experience.
I love the logical leap here (I permit you, this being the end of the first sentence, to stop reading here): because modern games don't usually require any skill they need to keep you paying artificially, they need to give you more s[COLOR=lightgreen]h[/COLOR]it to do. Therefore, Punch-out being a modern game, needs to do the same in order to have value.
Here's the reality, kiddo. Punchout can be completed on a perfect playthrough in a couple of hours. But unlike most games you actually have to be good to do a perfect playthrough, instead of just know where everything is or learn the puzzles. You will not be doing a perfect playthrough on your second try.
Ikaruga is literally 25 minutes long start to finish. You know how long I've spent on it? 8 HOURS. Because the game is HARD and I am not GOOD ENOUGH to get past LEVEL 3. But every 15 minute session I get in makes me last maybe an extra 5 seconds on average. Punch-out is like this, it is difficult. This is where you get your money's worth, instead of the end of the game marking something you've done it marks something you've gotten good at. As soon as you stop playing you get worse, immediately making the game challenging again. This causes a standard playthrough, even after finishing it, to keep you on your toes. This is REPLAY VALUE.
Though Nintendo will fag it up and let you save the amount of people you've defeated, and probably not even bother to include an arcade mode. If they let you unlock them how Ikaruga does it'll be awesome, though.
Not worth 50 bucks. Again, repeating the single-player over and over and perfect playthroughs don't appeal to me anymore, at least at that price. It being hard doesn't warrant 50 bucks. Needing to be "good" doesn't warrant 50 bucks. I mean, ****, Megaman 9 was pretty hard, has time attack modes, challenge modes etc, requires you to be "good", people do perfect playthroughs on that and it only cost 10 bucks.
That was a NES game.
What I find hilarious is that people think
i think vamp is trying to say that he wouldn't pay 60bux to repeat this experience again
[quote=The X;888793]oh look he's flashing, guess i'll press left then mash A and B then repeat 9 times until i reach tyson and just give up because ******* that nigga is broken
Hence my stating just now that it'll probably be a WiiWare title.
I still stand by my statement that something old, short and good is better value for $50 than something new, long and bad. Maybe it's a kind of "shared misery" thing, if you have to spend a hundred hours playing that garbage then you feel assured that someone had to spend 10,000 hours making it. I find it plain weird that people seem to think a new game is automatically worth more than an old game, everything else being equal and having played neither.
[quote=Vampiro V. Empire;889430] why would I buy something bad.
Something that's so bad that it becomes good, perhaps? Works a lot better for movies than videogames I suppose.
Yeah, that only works for movies and music. Maybe TV. Definitely not video games.
A bad videogame, unfortunately, is hateful. It's like interacting with a person that treats you like s[COLOR=lightgreen]h[/COLOR]it, instead of just watching a jackass which is usually hilarious.
[quote=Vampiro V. Empire;889430]Something good is better than something bad? Get out. Yeah, why would I buy something bad.
Well yeah, it is thatobvious, but it's not really what I meant. It's like how on some subconscious level I don't consider
That's a little silly. If something brings you great joy and entertainment that doesn't mean it should be upwards of 60 dollars. That's only one part of what makes something worth its price. Joy, quality, length/the amount of time I'll divest into it etc are all important. Just because something is well made doesn't warrant a high price tag, especially since I could get equal joy out of something free or a hell of a lot less expensive.
I thought supply and demand determined price. OH MY HOW LITTLE I KNOW.
We're not talking about what determines price. Should read next time.
What I'm saying is more hours don't necessarily mean a larger total volume of joy, if you will. Like how people will spend a thousand hours in WoW when there's only maybe 4 seconds of genuine fun per hour, but wouldn't pay the same price for the same amount of totalfun if all the air and fluff was cut out of it. Even that made it fundamentally more replayable.
Well come to think of it, I know a lot of adults that refuse to put up with pointless bullshit that kids and teenagers do because they have considerably less free time. Maybe they're the majority.
[quote=Vampiro V. Empire;890035] Should read next time.
NEVER.
But hey! if you can get the same amount of enjoyment from a small 40cent rubber ball instead of a 50doru game then save yourself the money!
And congrats Speedy for making another unnecessary slam against WoW to prove a point that everyone who plays it and says its fun are stupid.
I have to use something as an example, might as well speak from experience. It's not like I'm saying there's no fun there, I did play it for a year. No reasonable WoW player could deny the amount of ridiculous time-wasting in the game, they just shrug it off saying "it's an MMO". At least I'm not using a game I haven't even experienced as an example.