vanguard333

Funny; I too had to stop about 3/4 of the way through the game; in my case, it was because I moved, and by the time I got everything set up, my schedule became very busy. I wouldn't know about that comparison to VC3 though; I've only played VC1 and 4.

…What? …/10

It honestly depends on the game. There are a number of games with postgame content that I enjoyed (the Mega Man Star Force games come to mind); I just rarely find that to be the case for Fire Emblem games. I did play the trial maps of Path of Radiance a few times, but I grew bored of them, and Path of Radiance is my favourite Fire Emblem game.

I almost never use either, so I'm not sure which one I would prefer.

Late last year, I decided to try the Metroid series, starting with Super Metroid. I then played Metroid Dread after that. Both were fun. I heard a lot of good things about the Metroid Prime Trilogy, so I bought the trilogy on my Wii U for $20 and decided to give these games a try. Finally, I have completed all three games in the trilogy. I'm going to put my thoughts in spoiler tags in order to keep this from getting too long, but in the Prime 3 section, there are some actual spoilers. Preface: One thing I should say right away to bear in mind is that I am really not a fan of first-person games. I don't like being unable to see where the player character is standing, I don't like the lack of peripheral vision, and I don't like the focus on ranged combat that usually involves guns. When a game called Kingdom Come: Deliverance was announced, it sounded almost perfect for me: a historical fiction RPG set in late-Medieval Europe with combat inspired by actual Historical European Martial Arts. Yet, when the game released, what kept me from buying it wasn't the survival mechanics or the game being a buggy mess on release; it was the game being entirely first-person outside of dialogue that made me choose not to play it, as I knew I likely wouldn't enjoy it. So, with that in mind, what did I think of the Prime Trilogy? …I really enjoyed it. The Trilogy as a Whole: Prime 1: Prime 2: Echoes Prime 3: Corruption Obligatory "Which Game I liked Most" Section: I'm sure there's even more I could say about this trilogy, but I'll leave it at this for now. What do you think? Probably that nothing I said is anything new as these games are over a decade old.

I don't know about SEGA, but one thing I am certain of is that not even being bought would stop Capcom from releasing their games on multiple platforms.

Okay. But my main point was that, if this industry is allowed to become an oligopoly, the quality will degrade.

It's true that it cannot last long-term, and ease with which indie games have risen is a good sign. I'm more concerned about the damage these companies will do in the meantime before and during their fall.

I think it would've been funnier if, at the end, it showed someone catch up to them almost instantly just by walking casually.

The show that opening was for, Golden Kamuy, is actually really good and I'd recommend it. As for this video... it's... odd. I'd give it an odd/10

I really hope not. There's a word for that kind of consolidation: Oligopoly. If the industry gets consolidated down to just a few companies, they will stop competing and instead divide up who has which turf; basically creating all the problems of a monopoly. Prices will skyrocket and quality will degrade even further. This one will be even worse because it's the console manufacturers consolidating the game companies.

EDIT: I finally got the game and just started playing it today. My very first impression: this game, at times, looks absolutely gorgeous. Yes, the textures are dated and the pop-in is very noticeable sometimes. But, when you stop and look around, the game looks fantastic.

There's a thread specifically for posting ideas for fighters and what their movesets could be. Granted; you did go further than that and come up with a classic mode and such, but I can't help but feel that this should be posted in that thread.

I think the names for the Pokémon stats are pretty good. What they lack in sounding "organic" they make up for in being clear as to what the stat does. Attack/Defense for physical moves and special attack/special defense for non-physical moves makes sense. I was going to say "because there's already a move called 'clear mind'", but I double-checked and the move I was thinking of was called 'calm mind'. Still; it's close enough that there probably would be confusion which is also the name of another move.

Yeah; it is sad. It's also doomed; it might last them in the short term, but it's just not going to work long-term.

1. One story that doesn't have too many branches. The last two main FE games (Fates and Three Houses) have been about huge branching narratives, and both of them show signs of overambition/biting off more than they could chew. I hope, for the next game, they focus on telling one story rather than telling three-to-four stories, and telling that one story with the same level of care and ambition as they put into Three Houses' four stories. 2. A smaller base, and more than one base. Let's face it; they're going to reuse as much as they can from Three Houses; they put in all that work, and they're not going to scrap it after one game, and one of those mechanics is the explorable base in the form of Garreg Mach Monastery. One thing I think most people can agree on is that exploring Garreg Mach is initially fun, but it gets very repetitive and it's probably too big for its own good. To that end, I'm suggesting that they do something in-between Three Houses and the Tellius games in terms of the base mechanics: the base is explorable like in Three Houses, but it's very small and it changes with the different chapters, like in the Tellius games. 3. Varied Maps and Map Objectives. Again; take the, for lack of a better word, grandiosity of Three Houses, and apply that to maps with the kind of quality and variety seen in the Tellius games.

@Use the Falchion I see. Just one question:

Pokémon Legends: Arceus has now officially released. What are your impressions of it? Please make sure to put anything that wasn't revealed pre-release in spoiler tags.

I know it was a joke, but it was a joke that made me realize that I probably could've been more clear.

I was referring to Rogue One when I said "spinoff"; I even outright said, "Only six main Star Wars films and one spinoff" with the implication in-context being that the six main films are the OT and the prequels.

Dual-wielding could be interesting. My one issue with it would be that, in real life, wielding two weapons (other than weapon-&-shield) was very rarely done in a dueling context, and pretty-much never done on the battlefield. The extremely few cases of battlefield dual-wielding were cases of improvisation when a better option wasn't available, like one Celtic story of a warrior using a spear and a sword because he didn't have a shield. Dual-wielding was more prominent in dueling contexts, but even then, it was uncommon. The most common cases of it were cases of a sword and a dagger; the most notable examples being rapier-&-dagger and katana-&-wakizashi.

Never seen Lego Batman, agree about Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker being the best Batman film, extremely vehemently disagree about Snyder Cut being second best; I'd list Batman films I think are better than it, but the list includes pretty much all of them. Not only would I rather watch the theatrical version of Justice League than watch the Snyder cut, but I honestly would rather watch Batman & Robin than watch the Snyder Cut. Revenge of the Sith is definitely the best of the prequel films and it does manage to get a lot right. I wouldn't say it's as well-written as anything in the OT, but it definitely managed to do key moments correctly (Order 66 being a big example). Rogue One was okay. It's definitely the only Disney Star Wars film that I enjoyed. I think its main problem is that its core cast of characters, apart from the droid and the blind temple guardian, are not very memorable. Gareth Edwards can direct a decent plot and good action, but he seriously needs help when it comes to characters. The title still holds true; there are only six main Star Wars films and one spinoff film.

I disagree. I think the Original Trilogy still holds up: A New Hope didn't have much new when it came to storytelling; it was in many ways a classic Hero's Journey with a Space Epic reskin. But cliché doesn't mean bad; I've seen a lot of people these days defend bad storylines because they were at least surprising and the alternative would've been predictable; I strongly disagree with this notion. Tropes are tools; it is not the use of tropes and templates in-of-themselves that make a story bland; it is the use of these tropes without any thought or storytelling effort put into them. A New Hope's narrative may not be conceptually fascinating these days, but it is a reasonably-well-constructed narrative with a solid and interesting cast of characters. Empire Strikes Back is commonly held up as an example of a good sequel, and for good reason. The writing competency and the interesting characters are still there, and now it is telling something more original: a story where the heroes are constantly on the run and don't actually win; their only 'victory' being that they manage to get away, but the tone of the ending makes it clear that they still lost. Even today, that is hardly cliché. Return of the Jedi does rehash a lot and suffers for it; there's a reason it isn't as highly regarded as the others, but it still maintains a mostly-competent narrative and that core cast of interesting characters are still, well, interesting. As for the prequel trilogy... well, they're bad. There's no getting around that; they are poorly-written. However, they still manage to somewhat impress because they are at least interesting; the overarching narrative of a well-meaning but ultimately-rotten republic being corrupted into an evil empire is ultimately very fascinating at the conceptual level, and in every moment in the prequels, it is clear that there's an interesting story that it's trying to tell. Empire Strikes Back is looked back upon most fondly by a lot of people because it is both conceptually fascinating and competently structured. The rest of the OT are the latter, while the prequel trilogy is the former. The biggest problem that the sequel trilogy has, aside from very obviously not having had a plan, is that they are neither. I will admit that I did grow up with the prequels and the OT, but the thing is that I'm not a huge fan of the series; I liked the films, but stuff like SpongeBob and Zelda were a bigger part of my childhood than Star Wars. The Star Wars films were just fun films; my nostalgia for them is very limited.

My condolences.