>>1017607 How is the remake of this on PS2?

>>1017603 It's not that 1 is better it's that it's different, R&C and Crash Bandicoot also have the same thing going on, and I can see why people would prefer the first one of both those franchise as well Though I can also see R&C 2 and Crash 2 did a far better job at focusing on what they wanted to be be than Spyro 2 did compared to 1 >>1017607 Nah, I can't honestly call 1 better than any of the classics except maybe Chronicles because that was a clusterfuck The one flaw Tomb Raider classic really falls into is "you played the last game" syndrome where they start the difficulty almost where the last game left off and jack the difficulty so high it's genuinely unpleasant (except 4 I guess) but besides that the other games just are better overall. >>1017630 It's okay but not really the same style

>>1017603 Fucking Fight Me. The OG hard as balls open world console game. You can go where you like from the get-go for the most part and even do dungeons out of order if you're skilled enough. >>1017607 I agree for the most part. I do like some things added in 2 (somersault flips, flares) but the level design isn't as "fuck you" hard in TR1 which, like >>1017633 said, only gets harder in the sequels because it plays more like an expansion pack until you get to 3 which just has bullshit instant death traps all over the place forcing you to save scum.

Doom being better than Doom II is easy enough to claim: Having the guy who was already one of the weaker level designers on the team make 14-16 levels with an average of less than 20 days per level (likely less) made for some pretty shit levels all around. Super shotgun does not make up for this. I'd also argue Episode 1 of Doom'' is better than the other 3. Also Deus Ex >>1017637 Another obvious one.

>>1017603 >Series that Peaked with the First Game Literally the easiest question ever. Took me less than a second.

>>1017633 I feel like TR1 has elegance in it's design, which goes a long way towards covering up it's deficiencies as the first outing and having more primitive movesets. Just overall it felt like a much better game from start to finish than TR2 and TR3 for the exact reasons mentioned. TR2 put far too much emphasis on combat, and I enjoyed the more difficult platforming puzzles. TR3 had less of an emphesis on combat, which is good, but it also went completely fucking esoteric on the level design. Especially Thames Wharf I had a lot of issues with, though at least it had a nice climax. Most people seem to hate Lud's Gate, but honestly I didn't have many issues there so long as you ignore the submersible as much as possible. I wasted far more air hitting invisible corners, and had enough health packs that I could just take the HP drain and plow through some of the longer routes. I guess I didn't really count Last Revelation since I haven't played it since the Dreamcast, and I couldn't be bothered getting it to work my current machine. Never played Angel of Darkness, but given the general reception as being the game that killed the franchise, I think it's safe to say it's worse than TR1. >>1017630 TR: Anniversary was... ok-ish. I didn't like the move away from the precision of the grid-based system, and the controls felt really floaty to me. Sometimes they'd register, sometimes you'd fall to your death for veering off course at the last second. And it's not just the modern controls, since I toyed around with them on the I-III remake and didn't have many issues aside from certain moves just not being available for certain puzzles, so I switched back to tank controls. I didn't care for how they revamped the combat with the headshot system, or those fucking flying atlantian imps who could stunlock you with fireballs and push you off ledges. It's also the game which introduced "magnetic grips" and painted ledges to the genre, so it'll always have a special little piece of hatred in my heart for that. Didn't care for the retcons to Lara's character either. But the water and dirt effects on Laura's clothes - fucking aces on that. I still haven't seen many games which do it better. As for the others - Legend and Underworld felt like completely different storylines even from Anniversary, let alone the original games with how Lara was chasing after her mother after she got sucked into some portal to an alternate dimension. Didn't care for her melodramatic subplot with her friend that she left to die, and Natla returning was kind of a mixed bag. Kind of cool to see her play more of a recurring role throughout the series, but I also didn't really care for how she was handled either. The diversity cast that was her technical backup were grating as fuck and had no business being in a Tomb Raider game. The swarmy Brit did eat a bullet, but unfortunately the nigger survived to inject his "quippy" dialogue at the worst times. The combat was mostly the same from Anniversary, but without the headshot mechanic. Legend definitely felt the most floaty of the Crystal Dynamics reboot, which Underworld tightened up a bit and actually had some decent puzzles and level design to go along with it. Probably the strongest of those three. If they had cut out all the fucking unnecessary drama and just made it a fun adventure through some ruins to find some world-shattering powerful artifact, it might have been pretty good. I don't even want to get into the origins trilogy. That shit isn't even Tomb Raider, it's just an Uncharted clone with a barely Tomb Raider THEMED skin pulled over it. And even then, Drake still had bigger tits than Lara well Doughnut Drake did, anyhow. So yeah, I'd still say Tomb Raider 1 was the best in the franchise. Could still be wrong, though since I guess I never played TR:Chronicles. I was getting bored of TR after TLR and the whole "Lara dies" hook turned me off to the idea of playing it than interesting me

>>1017650 Forgot this.

Here's another obvious one.

>>1017603 Despite some parts after the lordvessel feeling rushed or downright incomplete, it's still better than every game that came after it, including elden meme.

>>1017654 Never played Bloodborne did you?

>>1017644 Doom 1 is the best in the series, I agree.

Not gonna lie it was odd that they started with 7.

>>1017652 obligatory

>>1017644 Just played through Doom 1 and 2 and Doom 2 was a slog to get through. Doom 1 was much better. I also found myself not using the super shotgun much, just the normal shotgun.

>>1017651 That's really well done. I love the original VA for Lara, and her original look and dimensions.

Ty 1 might have felt like it needed more content and challenging enemies, but Ty 2 and 3 were bogged down by mostly mediocre minigames and increasingly bad plot and script writing. Ty 3 even made the rang selection menu worse by having you confirm every time you switched rangs instead of just letting you leave the menu while a certain rang was selected. The only really good thing Ty 3 did was give you a use for your endgame opals by letting you by maps for collectibles so you can reasonably weed out the last things you need for 100%. Oh, and add more sexy minor female characters.

>>1017664 Doom 2's levels are its biggest problem, the mapping scene is why it's stayed so enduring. There a lot of Megawads much better than its own.

>>1017603 I liked being able to swim in the sequels, but yeah the minigames overwhelm everything & make 100% completion more of a chore.

Metroid Prime isn't the first in the entire series but it is the first in the Prime subseries, and it's the best one of the lot.

Kinda peaked? My opinion on which fallout game is the best changes a bit between the first one and fallout new vegas. If you don't like new vegas though for whatever reason then Fallout peaked with the first game.

>>1017703 This is my exact opinion, too. I think I like Fallout 1 more, though I've played New Vegas ten times longer if that makes any sense. NV is much more accessible but I feel like 1 is the better game overall. Fallout 2 of course can be way too silly and a bit of a pop culture orgy, but I'll give it leeway for having been made in 9 months. Nobody's going to be putting out their best work in that time frame. Many casuals would say 3 is their favorite. I can see that, it's got great exploration and a great atmosphere, but its flimsy story and truly awful gameplay bring it down too low. For all of NV's gameplay problems, they at least tried to improve the atrocious gunplay.

Diablo, Danganronpa, Fallout, Chrono, DBZ Budokai, Dark Souls

>>1017752 >ダンガンロンポール I thought the 3rd chronological game in the series was where it shat itself? Didn't find the second to be worse or better than the first.

>>1017603 Bayonetta, 2 was alright and 3 was a major disappointment.

Maybe a controversial one?

Grandia. While the gameplay reached a masterclass with 3, X was a fun dungeon crawler, and 2 had arguably the best story, the first Grandia was an absolute masterpiece in that all of its components were in the top tier. >Fantastic characters >Beautiful coming of age adventure story >Genre redefining combat >Incredible soundtrack >40 hours of buildup on a save the world plot that really invested you in everything and everyone involved The other games could occasionally match or slightly surpass it in one element but always fell behind in the others. 2 was easier and much more linear, X and 3 had retarded characters and thrown together stories, 3 had awful music, etc.

>>1017787 >I thought the 3rd chronological game in the series was where it shat itself? It is, that's where the series pretty much imploded. Overall it seems like many people enjoy Danganronpa 2. But the departure from the confined school setting to a more sunny, tropical, open island setting certainly did feel like a downgrade for some players. Part of what gives the first game it's identity is the stark contrast between the stereotypical clean, happy Japanese high school and the dark, bloody circumstances the students find themselves in against their will. Plus, the ending reveal of DR2 where the surviving students found out that the whole island was a virtual reality computer world where they were all undergoing some sort of anti-despair therapy could have seemed like a ridiculous direction for the series to go. So while you will certainly find fans of 2, there are also many who believe the series peaked with 1 and has only gotten much worse from there.

>>1017690 2 and 3 don't even feel like they were made by the same developer. They're like sequels some shovelware developer would make 10 years after the original came out to profit off of nostalgia. I'd really like to know what was going on behind the scenes that led to them turning out the way they did. >>1017752 >Diablo Really? I've only played a little bit of II because that's the one everybody always raves about. What does I do better? >>1017788 I think most people agree that this is the best one. But the sequels are so different that it's hard to compare them. The first one is open world Crash Bandicoot while the sequels are GTA games with science fiction and platforming segments.

>>1017959 I bet at the time most people thought Jak II was way better than the first game. But over time as the trends that led to Jak II faded, people seem to have grown to appreciate the original game more again. I do think Jak & Daxter does what it does more effectively, but it's also an incredibly short game, and it's not like Jak II is bad or anything. It gives me a lot more entertainment, but not more entertainment per minute. But I am entertained the whole time.

>>1017788 Jak 1 is 100% a less well made game than the following 2, but it's also absolutely not the same type of game even more so than what I've mentioned here >>1017633 >>1017959 >I think most people agree that this is the best one Not really, having just 100%ed 1 & 2 I cannot even begin to agree I think most of the people claiming that do so as a kneejerk to Jak 2 being edgy, PG13 GTA and not being great at teaching you what to do + being a whole lot more punishing resulting in a hectic difficulty curve. And then 3 is just 2 but better and bigger.

>>1017985 I'd argue that Jak II and 3 try to do a lot more, and that's cool, but they aren't the best at anything they do. The driving is pretty meh, and the shooting is pretty meh, and the platforming level design is pretty meh. But you put it all together and it's pretty good. Jak 1 is an excellent platformer, though. It basically just does one thing, but it does it very well. Jak 3 also suffers from being a bit too easy, IMO, which makes it feel substantially shorter than II (even though 3 has more missions). Also, 3 feels noticeably unfinished. **One that always bugged me was at the end when Ashelin hears that Jak's real name is Mar, and she says "like, THE Mar?" That idea wasn't brought up previously. It feels like a remnant of an earlier plot thread that they rushed too hard to either finish or remove.) Jak X is fucking awesome and doesn't get enough credit.

>>1017969 >>1017985 I was disappointed with II when it came out. Not because of the edginess, I just found all the driving to be boring. I tried playing it again years later and lost interest around the part with the hoverboards.

>>1017991 II blew my fucking mind when it came out. Still sort of had enough platforming to convince me it was the same, but I thought it was cool that it had so many other things going on as well. The driving was pretty similar to the driving in Jak I, but there was more of it. And that driving was just the same as the jet ski in Crash 3. But yeah, in retrospect, it wasn't good enough to justify being as big a part of Jak II as it was. The story in Jak II also blew me away. It was one of the first games I played with a story that significant, at least outside of RPGs. (So it was one of the first real video games, with actually good gameplay, that I played and had a story that good.) But now, when games all have too much story, and Naughty Dog epitomizes the worst of it, I am no longer so impressed by Jak II. I see it, and the pivoting from platforming to shooting, as harbingers of dark things to come.

>>1017987 >The driving is pretty meh, and the shooting is pretty meh, and the platforming level design is pretty meh. But that's the thing Jak 1 also has those things and they're done worse besides the platforming, they're not the focus and are more minigames whereas 2 has all those things flow into each other naturally even if the platforming takes a step back in importance it also basically removes the idea that variety is done through minigames that 1 had and instead has variety by design. >>1017995 > it wasn't good enough to justify being as big a part of Jak II as it was. It was the natural outcome of the world design which in itself was an extension of the way Jak 1 wanted to have A world and not jus a bunch of levels.

>>1018002 Jak 1 has very little shooting (I guess you mean the Yellow Eco? I don't even think that really counts), and not much more driving. It has about as much driving as Crash 3, because really it's the jet ski from that game with a slightly different skin. I like the jet ski in Crash 3 because there isn't that much of it, but if there was more I'd get sick of it. In Jak II there's a lot more. >It was the natural outcome of the world design which in itself was an extension of the way Jak 1 wanted to have A world and not jus a bunch of levels. Sort of, but a lot of the world design in Jak II was less dense because it was expected that you'd be driving everywhere. It could have been more dense if you were expected to go on foot. I mean don't get me wrong, Jak II is one of my favorite games of all time. But over the years I've come to appreciate Jak 1 a little more. Maybe. My big complaint against Jak 1 is that it's so short I can 100% it in one sitting without much difficulty. Jak II sure doesn't have that problem. It's absurdly hard, but aside from one mission on Hero Mode ("Destroy Drill Platform"), which almost doesn't count because it's Hero Mode, I do think the difficulty is all reasonable. And there is certainly enough content in the game.

Far Cry

>>1017959 Diablo 1's atmosphere is better, the game is simpler and less autistic about skills, builds, items and farming, which could be good or bad depending on what kind of videogamer you are.

Turok and Max Payne are the biggest examples of this to me. Turok 1 is an arcade style FPS more like Doom, which works because it's simple and fun. While Turok 2 is more complex, it's also boring and gets really frustrating with the underground realm. Max Payne 1 should be more self-evident. 2 just doesn't have the same amount of weirdness and fun that 1 did, in my opinion.

DKC is another platformer series that I think peaked with its first entry, though I know I'm in the minority on this. 2 definitely had higher highs, but so many of the levels towards the end are those obnoxious gimmick levels where you have to play as the animal buddies the whole time. DKC 1 is more consistent all the way through.

>>1018511 DKC 2's save system triggers my autism in a very negative way. I hate having to essentially buy saves. I don't care if the coins are plentiful. It's just irritating. I think DKC 1's save system is excellent. Unlimited saves but you have to reach the save point of a world first, so those first few levels in a world are a bit of a gauntlet, and then the harder levels at the end let you save between levels. The difficulty in that game is balanced very well. I suppose 2 isn't that different, actually, but I just fucking hate having to spend money to save.

This is probably going to get me crucified. I just like these games because of the unique physics engine and the likeable character design. I don't care for stories and gay friends. Sonic should have stayed as a momentum simulator. Also, spin dash made things too easy breezy.

Not only did this peak with the first game, I'd argue that it peaked on its first JAP release. All future versions used the updated engine from Blizzard/Firestorm, which fixed some bugs but also completely wrecked the comfy artstyle of the first in favor of the grittier one of the second game, a lot of the moves had their values changed which made some teams a joke to beat, plus all the PAL/NTSC versions have added retarded Japengland names to the characters (and even reworked their personality, luckily they left the "risquè doujin" joke in). Granted, it has more postgame content, but Level 5 is notorious for making games that are 10% main story and 90% grindfests after beating them, which is why the first Inazuma Eleven felt so good to 100% by just beating a super beefed up final boss instead of a hundred 5-0 S rank missions. And all future releases got the Pokèmon Curse, as rather than a single game now you have to either pay for two (or three in the case of Team Ogre) or be forced to link up with someone who had the other versions just to get to the postgame content. I also heard some people claim that Crash 1 was the peak of the series, but honestly they're really seeing with rose tinted glasses. The challenge was there and it was fun, but Crash 2 is an improvement on all aspects barring gimmicks. >>1017603 Spyro 2 was better in any conceivable way though. But it's honestly a toss up for people who grew up with them. At least we're in agreement that 3 was kinda mediocre. >>1017607 Agreed. >>1017638 I hate Ocarina of Time and all the people who jerk it off so it must be true. >>1018598 Not at all. Although 2 and 3 &Knuckles were superior in term of content, all the games after the first Sonic stopped rewarding skill by letting you maintain your speed and became glorified obstacle courses.

>>1017781 Danganronpa 2 was kind of bland, but at least the devs were sort of trying something different and played with the expectations of the people who played the original (as well those classic high school horror games from Japan). The problem rose when the Western side of the fanbase became obsessed by it, which I feel happened more in relation to 2 than 1. All other entries go from shit to JHC what were they thinking. At least they've got some inazumer representation. >>1017667 >The virgin fatshamer vs the chad Ambulocetus >>1017652 How's Caligula? I remember this and Your Turn To Die being shilled non stop here.

>>1017638 This is probably going to get me crucified but I honestly think that if not for being declared as part of the same series and sharing themes/characters the first 3 Zelda games don't feel as such, including Triforce of the Gods which while technically continuing the gameplay style established by Zelda 1 has so many refinements and QoL improvements it may as well be its own thing. It wasn't until OOT on the N64 and to a lesser degree The dreaming Island on the GB that the Zelda series settled on a definite style/"formula", which it hasn't shed to this day and likely never will. >>1018511 My favorite DKC is 3, pls bully. DKC1 is a stupidly strong first entry into the series and a rock-solid game throughout, DKC2 goes even further beyond with its bombastic muhfuggen pirate theme but I'm kind of drawn towards DKC3's serene, gentle atmosphere in its depiction of the more temperate northern kremisphere as opposed to the tropical settings of the first two games. The spritework was also perhaps the best of any game with pre-rendered sprites when viewed on a CRT.

>>1017788 I don't know, I like 3 a lot

>>1017987 >The driving is pretty meh Stopped reading, the Boomers physics are top tier and each model has different handling. They went all out with those things.

>>1018489 2 doesn't have the same quirks and cheese. But it nails Noir

>>1018600 >I also heard some people claim that Crash 1 was the peak of the series, but honestly they're really seeing with rose tinted glasses. Either that, or they're Tawna waifufags.

>>1018618 It's sure not anywhere near as fun as CTR, and that's what I want. I wouldn't even say it's as good as the driving in GTA, and that's pretty mediocre, too. Jak X had excellent driving, though. >>1018843 I used to think Crash 1 was by far the worst of the original games, but when the N. Sane Trilogy came out and had time trials in all the games, I grew to appreciate how intricate Crash 1's levels are. Getting the Platinum Relics in that game made me play it in a whole new way. Everything lines up just right so that it actually gets easier when you go super fast, if you're good enough to go super fast. It's like what Sonic is supposed to be, but frankly I think it's better at it than a lot of Sonic games. I'd even say it's better at it than Crash 3, and Crash 3 was obviously made with time trials in mind the whole time. Crash 2's levels didn't really work the same, though a lot of people seem to say those are the best levels, at least for a casual playthrough. They're good, but at a high level, Crash 1 is more fulfilling. Other games you wouldn't expect to do this well, but which I think do this well, include things like Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels and Ninja Gaiden 1. Very hard, but part of the trick is moving at full speed. If you can get good enough to not hesitate, then everything lines up so that it actually gets a bit easier, and it feels really good to accomplish.

>>1018600 >Spyro 2 was better in any conceivable way though. But it's honestly a toss up for people who grew up with them. At least we're in agreement that 3 was kinda mediocre. Spyro 1 has the best movement challenges. Figuring out how to use the supercharge jumps in levels like Tree Tops and Lofty Castle beat everything from Spyro 2 and 3. >>1018616 >Triforce of the Gods which while technically continuing the gameplay style established by Zelda 1 has so many refinements and QoL improvements it may as well be its own thing. Are you saying Zelda 3 doesn't feel like the modern formula? Because I don't get that at all. Not only is it extremely similar to Link's Awakening, but it's frankly still extremely similar to Ocarina of Time and most of the later games. It's way more linear than Zelda I, has you do a few dungeons that act like they're gonna lead to the last boss but actually are just an intro, then you get introduced to an alternate world and you switch between two parallel worlds throughout most of the game. Ocarina of Time added 3D, but frankly aside from the shooting it doesn't use the extra dimension all that much, at least compared to things like Mario 64 (or Breath of the Wild, which I'd say is the first Zelda game that really used verticality very effectively). You're right about DKC, though. I can't think of any pre-rendered sprites that look better than that, at least on comparable hardware. Those Super Nintendo games still look way better than the Wii and Wii U sequels. All I want is for them to rerelease the DKC games with higher-res sprites, since resolution is no longer an issue for them. I don't want new sprites based on new models, I just want new renders of the same models, because those models looked excellent. Actually, what I really want is a collection of those plus the Donkey Kong Land games re-done in the same style, so they look like (this higher-res) version of DKC, with color and all that.

>>1017959 The devs said they played GTA3 and shifted development totally. I kind of hate GTA for what it did to the industry, honestly. >>1017985 >Jak 1 is 100% a less well made game than the following 2 >Not really, having just 100%ed 1 & 2 Have you actually played 2 recently? The driving mechanics are awful, the shooting is weird and doesn't work like any other game I've ever played, and the city is so awkwardly designed. I do agree 2 and 3 and different games entirely to 1. I wish there was a 'normal' Jak & Daxter 2, I haven't quite seen that open world platformer concept done in the same way.

>>1017788 Jak needs a slightly higher jump in that game, I always overestimate what jumps he's able to make.

>>1019023 That's basically Crash 1 though.

>>1018843 Imagine being the second wave feminist who thought they could police sexy women out of gaming and ended up gifting the world an even bigger semen demon. >>1018852 >Everything lines up just right so that it actually gets easier when you go super fast, if you're good enough to go super fast That's kind of the reason why the original Crash 1 was great but not the best the series had to offer. It rewards memorization of the cycles in the game rather than actual mastery of the controls. Boiling it down to its essentials, all player inputs are run, speen, jump, jump slightly higher and wait for a platform/enemy. You can't even crouch in Crash 1. My reasoning for why Crash 2 is the best of the entire series is that the "player expression" is fully realized thanks to the movement options you're given from the get go. There's no denying that the game is far easier than 1, and you also get plenty of coyote time and a floatier feel for Crash, but just the way you can course correct on a dime in 2 feels just so right. C1 rewards being attentive but C2 rewards just being good at controlling the character and spatial awareness, don't know if it makes it more casual but it's just more fun to me than waiting for the goddamn bats to despawn for a moment. Crash 3 is just Crash 2's DLC, and my proof of that is that the modding community is much more concerned with Crash 2 levels than Crash 3. All are phenomenal games btw, so don't assume I don't like any.

>>1017703 Agree 100%. I can and still do boot up Fallout 1 every few months and have a great time from start to finish as it doesn't waste my fucking time nor feel like a slog. 2, on the other hand, I get the urge to reinstall it from time to time and as soon as I remember I have to do that fucking temple and how the first couple of hours are a absolute slog, I uninstall it. The pacing in 2 is completely fucked and feels like it wastes your time whereas the first game you make your character, load into the cave with a gun, you kill the rats and start getting on with the game.

>>1019067 FO2 is retardedly easy if you just dump points into melee, the game basically leads you into doing that, that and the rat punching mazes for the first few hours.

>>1019071 *Unarmed specifically, that goes along with the stupid tournament quest in San Francisco.

>>1018972 >I wish there was a 'normal' Jak & Daxter 2, I haven't quite seen that open world platformer concept done in the same way. Crash Twinsanity sort of attempted it, but that game was very unfinished, and though I appreciate the ambition, it's nowhere near as good as Jak & Daxter. >>1019030 >It rewards memorization of the cycles in the game rather than actual mastery of the controls. No, because if you're actually just going fast and not hesitating, you don't need to memorize because everything just lines up for you. It just rewards mastery of controls. If you've mastered them then you'll go fast and not have to wait. >Boiling it down to its essentials, all player inputs are run, speen, jump, jump slightly higher and wait for a platform/enemy. Exactly. Simplicity can be good. And if you're playing at a high level, you don't end up having to wait for platforms or enemies or traps or whatever. Until I played the Time Trials in the remake, though, I definitely liked 2 and 3 a lot more. I enjoyed the Time Trials in 3, and they ended up giving me a lot more to do in the game, so I sort of liked it more than 2, but half the levels are gimmick levels where you aren't just jumping around as Crash, and while I like the gimmicks, that might be a bit more of them than ideal. So I could never really pick a favorite between 2 and 3. But then they added time trials to 2, and frankly, they weren't as good as either 1 or 3, and made me appreciate the level design in 1 and 3 more. But then this is all stuff relating to an extra mode added in a remake, so it almost shouldn't count.

Fight me

You can tell that they put a lot of effort into making it a standout SNES title. Stages influence one another when you clear them, some have very well thought-out secrets, enemies laugh at you when you take damage, a few enemy types have destructible parts, and even a couple bosses can get disfigured by the Boomerang Cutter. The boss weapons are perfect, every single one of them is useful against both the bosses and the enemies you encounter. It fits the story perfectly too, living up to the potential that Zero saw in X. The feeling you get from blasting your way through Sigma's Fortress, utilizing every tool at your disposal to make short work of every enemy in your path, is unmatched by any other game in the entire franchise. I'd say X5 is the only other game that gets X's weapons right, which is fitting considering its role as the intended finale. X1 also has the best story beats, giving you a good glimpse into X's character, a feel for the tone of the series, and setting Sigma up as a techno-lich.

>>1019840 Can't fight the truth >>1018972 >Have you actually played 2 recently? Yeah >The driving mechanics are awful, A bit floaty but expected since it's an AG vehicle, it honestly isn't bad even even compared to fully fledged AG racer standards. > the shooting is weird and doesn't work like any other game I've ever played It's R&C 1 except the autoaim is actually good and communicates what you're gonna hit way better.

>>1020374 X was the best but X5 was garbage.

>>1020396 >X5 was garbage Aside from the Alia hints and the timer being tied to what extra items you get, I never understood this one. There's a mod that gives it some quality of life improvements, including the removal of the aforementioned gripes, but the downside is that it replaces the intro theme with Monkey.

Here's peak greybeard. Though I don't agree with 64 or Final Doom as picks, I wouldn't fight anybody on that.

>>1020374 >>1020396 >>1020401 X5 making RNG an absolute central mechanic that decides if you even get to play the full game or not is enough to make it the worst Mega Man game up to that point in the series. Real shame, too, since X4 is the only other game in the X series that comes close to X1. >>1020392 >Jak II has better shooting than Ratchet & Clank 1 You're crazy.

>>1020453 Ratchet & Clank 1 had janky combat and somehow Jak II's is much worse. Even when you get the hang of it with wastelander moves and chaining enemies, it never feels great. It doesn't help the weapon variety is extremely limited and of tiny four weapon roster, only two are viable. Jak II is a hodgepodge mess of ideas the developers had during production, they really liked GTAIII and Ratchet & Clank and Tony Hawk and a bunch of other games and threw them all together.

>>1020485 Ratchet 1's combat is fine. You couldn't strafe, but it was a less combat-heavy game than the sequels, so it wasn't as big a problem. It played a lot more like Spyro than Resistance. Plus, you can side flip in that first game, can't you? That gets the job done for when you sort of would want to strafe.

>>1018529 Not sure what was the bigger mistake. Making it a trilogy without even planning out how each game would go plot wise, or making it a trilogy in the first place. Should have just made it one game, and just imply the galaxy would unite to stop the Reapers somehow. >>1020419 I agree on the soundtrack alone. Can't even remember what the other Doom soundtracks were like.

>>1020495 I think even Insomniac wished they did better, retrospectively. The combat works but it leaves something to be desired, especially if you're playing it after any of the other PS2 games. The game's variety of weapons is what really saves it, the Visibombs and Pyrocitor quell many of the issues that might have arisen. >>1020498 2 does that have that great Icon of Sin theme, though.

>>1020499 >I think even Insomniac wished they did better, retrospectively. Well yeah they improved it in the sequel, but that's the case for every video game. Or at least it used to be. I'd still say I'm not sure if the level design is better in any of the sequels, though. The first game might have an edge even though the sequels added some good control options.

>>1020419 DOOM 64 really doesn't have much over the OG and being limited by its console origins it has a bunch of downsides Now Final DOOM if you count it as separate from the original release that's really hard to not pick it over the OG release, because it's literally the same thing + one of the best episode. >>1020453 >You're crazy. No, because R&C1 combat is better dealt with by just standing out of aggro range and slowly sniping everything or going retard mode with the flame provided it's either swarmers or you can stunlock whatever you're targeting. Or you ignore everything and use the wrench / bypass enemies you can't wrench, but then you still have to deal with the most retarded decision of forcing you to be static when throwing it. There' a reason why the one place that tells you about the super shitty strafe mechanic 1 has is the one place where they design encounters you can't retard modeRYNO excluded or snipe. >>1020485 >Even when you get the hang of it with wastelander moves and chaining enemies, it never feels great. See above how can combat that is either static or braindead be better than Jak2 where you actually have to move and react to what's happening. If you dropped R&C1 controls in Jak2 it would easily be ten times worse, there's a reason why Jak2 has something like the shooting range and R&C1 has nothing even close to it in term of combat complexity if you pay attention you'll even notice that basic enemies have much lower time to hit and are much less predictable in Jak2.

>>1020615 Frankly, the movement in Jak II just isn't as fun as the movement in Ratchet & Clank 1, and that impacts the combat. Combat in Ratchet is all about going in and jumping around while you shoot stuff. You could snipe stuff, but that's only the best way to do things sometimes.

>>1020660 >. Combat in Ratchet is all about going in and jumping around while you shoot stuff in 2 and 3 yeah, in 1 it really isn't because the autoaim is dogshit and most weapon have a animation lock preventing you from firing on the move >but that's only the best way to do things sometimes. You literally have a weapon dedicated to sniping things you shouldn't be able to

>>1020668 The autoaim in Jak II is even worse in my opinion, you can barely tell what you're aiming at. You at least have the little reticule in Ratchet 1.

>>1020770 >autoaim that doesn't even always hit a target it's locked on is somehow better than one that does How about no. >you can barely tell what you're aiming at There's a bright red line from your gun to your target, what exactly is hard to see here?

Always a bit baffled by people who really love Jak II and all of its awkwardness. I find those who played Jak II fall into two camps >people who first played it as kids >people who first played it as adults The former love the game to death, the latter see it as a weird experiment that didn't work. Not only that, but the people who love it to death will also to bat for it against anybody who doesn't. The one guy ITT defending the game for a week isn't unique, look at any video critiquing the game and you'll find superfans like Powercell Zeke in the comments defending it like it's their autistic little brother. I guess it's one of those games you had to "be there" to get, open-world action games were still kind of mindblowing in the early 2000s and releases like Jak II would have a very strong impact on those who played it.

>>1020778 >the latter see it as a weird experiment that didn't work. Played it as an adult and I don't think that, my point from the beginning was regardless of personal preference for the style of game they respectively are Jak 1 is not as well made as 2, playing both back to back only highlighted that to me, not that Jak2 is some kind of absolutely perfect games with no flaws and there's not been much good arguments as to why I wouldn't be justified in thinking 2 is better made than 1.

>>1020668 >and most weapon have a animation lock preventing you from firing on the move Only a few are slow enough to really be like what you say. Stopping for one moment to fire a few shots is still perfectly viable with most of the ones you mention. Only a few are really so slow that you're not supposed to use them when just jumping around, and that's pretty much just the Visibomb gun. That said, I do find that every Ratchet game has a few weapons that are just too practical and make the rest something you kind of have to use on purpose, just to level them up. (And levelling up isn't a concern in the first game.) The Blaster is almost always much more useful through most situations in most of the series, to the degree that in the sequels I have to just try to avoid using it except for when really needed, so that I can level up the rest of the weapons. >You literally have a weapon dedicated to sniping things you shouldn't be able to Yeah. What's wrong with that? It's slow and doesn't have much ammo, but it has a few particular use cases. Hell, your complaint about that weapon shouldn't be that it's overpowered, but that it's highly situational. It's almost more like it's for puzzle solving (for lack of a better word) than anything else. >>1020775 >>autoaim that doesn't even always hit a target it's locked on is somehow better than one that does The actual aiming, moving to face in the right direction, doesn't feel as good. >>1020778 Honestly, I was a kid when Jak & Ratchet were coming out. At the time I liked Jak II better than Ratchet & Clank: Going Commando, by just a little bit. I appreciated its ambition more. But over time I've seen far too many games do what it does, so it's less novel (not to mention the fact that what it was doing was aping whatever games were popular at the time). Ratchet did that, but to a smaller degree (the first one is still very similar to Spyro, but with guns, because shooters were getting more popular than mascot platformers). But even if we're comparing Ratchet 1 to Jak II, Ratchet 1 does fewer things but does them more effectively. Jak II is a Jak of all trades, but master of none. Don't get me wrong, I'd argue it adds up to more than the sum of its parts, but each individual part is not the best of its kind. >>1020793 Jak 1 has well better platforming than Jak II, and that's almost the whole game, so that's important. There's not much platforming in Jak II, but what is there is only sort of good. Jak II is much more about driving, which is also in Jak 1, but again it's better in 1, due to only having a few particular tracks that are very carefully designed. Jak II has you drive much more, but the city driving isn't as much fun as driving on tracks. The tracks are alright, but I don't know if I'd say they're as fun as Jak I. The city driving is also alright, but I definitely wouldn't say it's a major draw of the game. Jak II is very much about combat, especially with guns. There isn't much shooting in Jak 1, aside from a powerup you can get at a few points. It hardly even counts. Jak II's combat still isn't that much fun though. There are only a few weapons and they're alright but not great, and the movement isn't that much fun. I'm repeating myself and making it sound like I like the game less than I do. I like it a lot. It's one of my favorites. But if you look at each individual piece, it's only meh. It's putting it all together that makes for a really good package.

>>1020904 >Only a few are slow enough to really be like what you say. Every glove weapon, the devastator, hell the RYNO as well does have a small stop when you fire it, a lot of other can fire on the move but will lock you in place if you start firing static then try to move immediately >Stopping for one moment to fire a few shots is still perfectly viable Not as viable as staying out of aggro range entirely. >That said, I do find that every Ratchet game has a few weapons that are just too practical and make the rest something you kind of have to use on purpose Exactly why the upgrade mechanic got introduced >Yeah. What's wrong with that? Nothing is wrong per se it just steer combat towards a less fun but far more effective form of combat. > but that it's highly situational The only reason not to use it most of the time is that you'll have less money to spend on other guns, which solves itself because there's basically no reason to buy anything but 4 guns in that game anyways. >The actual aiming, moving to face in the right direction, doesn't feel as good. I've had them side by side running off the same controller and the actual difference is so fucking minimal I struggle to see how one feels bad while the other doesn't, having good permanent feedback of where my shots go like Jak 2 does is objectively better than having either no feedback or sometimes wrong feedback like R&C1 does. >Jak 1 has well better platforming than Jak II, More for sure sure, better, that's really arguable, the one thing 1 has over two is that platforming is not always a 1 way trip whereas 2 is usually point A to point B and it sometimes doesn't even have a clear way back Now that I think about it neither game has a platforming segment I can clearly remember despite having played it earlier this month so it's more than likely neither has particularly good platforming to begin with >but the city driving isn't as much fun as driving on tracks It has a common issue, it's too involved to be downtime but it's too easy to be engaging >aside from a powerup you can get at a few points. It hardly even counts. If you can't beat the game without using it then I don't see why it wouldn't count.

>>1021169 >small stop Yes. And I said only a few are slow enough to prevent you from doing it while moving around in combat. Stopping for a moment to fire is not a dealbreaker on that. >Not as viable as staying out of aggro range entirely. I disagree. I suppose you can play a lot of games like that if you really want to, but that doesn't mean they should all be played like that. It's perfectly viable to go in and play with a more acrobatic style, and if you're just a bitch that wants to play everything super safe (but slow and boring) and snipe from the shadows, that's your business. That's not exclusive to this game. That's basically any game with shooting. >Exactly why the upgrade mechanic got introduced Yeah but I don't think it solves the problem. If I didn't care about autistic completion and maxing out all weapons, I wouldn't use The Bouncer, or at least not very much. I do still like the mechanic though, because I am that sort of autist. >Nothing is wrong per se it just steer combat towards a less fun but far more effective form of combat. I think what we're dealing with here is just a particular form of autism that makes you play everything as slow and safely as possible. And I get it, because I just said I have a form of autism that makes me use suboptimal weapons just so I can see number go up. But I admit that's kind of a personal thing, and I think your slow and safe snipe everything you can method is as well. >that footage Do you actually play Jak and Ratchet without jumping? That's a pretty major part of both of those games, Anon. The way Ratchet jumps and flips and all that makes him way more agile than Jak, and makes it way more fun to do agile combat. That said, the level designs also contribute to this. Jak II de-emphasized platforming and the agile movement associated with it pretty significantly. >Jak 1 platforming isn't good either I disagree. I don't think it's quite as good as Crash, but I think it has plenty of sections that actually test your platforming abilities pretty well, especially as you go further in the game. And at the start it still has some, though yeah it's mixed with a bit more Banjo-style exploration. >It has a common issue, it's too involved to be downtime but it's too easy to be engaging Yeah that's kind of a good way to put it. I do like the idea of switching between the two levels, but sometimes it's a little bit janky. >If you can't beat the game without using it then I don't see why it wouldn't count. That's like saying Spyro is a shooter because of the Superflame powerup in 2 and 3. Yeah, no, that shooting is not very comparable to the shooting even in Ratchet & Clank (which I list because obviously it shares many similarities with Spyro).

>>1021212 >>Yes. And I said only a few are slow enough to prevent you from doing it while moving around in combat. Stopping for a moment to fire is not a dealbreaker on that The Chopper in 2 prove exactly why this is a detriment to any sort of mobile combat, it has exactly the same kind of animation locks many weapon in 1 have ecpet here you can sorta mitigate it because the jumping in combat doesn't suck complete dicks and the autoaim can't really fuck you over as much (both because it's better and the weapon basically not needing to hit anything directly). >I disagree. I suppose you can play a lot of games like that if you really want to, but that doesn't mean they should all be played like that If a way to play is riskier and less rewarding it's objectively a worse way to play, if you're not gonna snipe the wrench is usually better than guns >Yeah but I don't think it solves the problem. You're using all the guns at least for a time, it does what it's supposed to do. >I wouldn't use The Bouncer Opinions discarded >I think what we're dealing with here is just a particular form of autism that makes you play everything as slow and safely as possible If the game is actively designed in such a way that the risk is higher and the reward is lower for not doing so then yeah I will play that way >Do you actually play Jak and Ratchet without jumping? >"The actual aiming, moving to face in the right direction, doesn't feel as good." >Ctrl+ F "jumping" >0 results found I don't jump unless it's for dodging, and evne considering that Jak2 still has a much faster transition between moving / shooting / melee than R&C1 does, the only thing it lacks is sideflips which suck ass in R&C1 Besides going back to what the clip was addressing the R&C1 autoaim deals even worse with jumping than the one in Jak 2 does, the former will randomly decide that you're not aiming at the same thing anymore (or not aiming at anything despite something being right in front of you) while the latter will at least try to stay aimed on something if you were aiming on something before jumping It took strafing, better autoaim, different weapon design (a lot more AoE / fire & forget type stuff in 2 and 3) and the lockon mod to actually make the kind of combat you're claiming 1 has actually happen and be rewarding.. >That's like saying Spyro is a shooter because of the Superflame powerup in 2 and 3 When did I say any of the game mentioned were shooters? Funny you mention Spyro 3 though as that genuinely might have the best implementation of such mechanics relative to the game it's in as it has actual variety and a degree of difficulty more proportional to the degree of mastery you're expected to have and the limits of the implementation of said mechanics, it even has actual strafing which alone puts it above R&C1.

In an attempt to move away from this spergery, here's a game I'm surprised was only mentioned in passing

>>1023212 >In an attempt to move away from this spergery Where do you think you are?