Yeah I agree. Way too expensive. I love Super Mario Bros. 3 but I have played it about 305812389058239057290
Yeah I agree. Way too expensive. I love Super Mario Bros. 3 but I have played it about 305812389058239057290
badgenome said: Given how poorly most PS1 games have aged, I'd much rather play an SNES game any day. So, if anything, they're underpriced. |
Front Mission 3 excluded i'd hope.
Though outside Front Mission 3 i'd agree. The game that's held up the best for me along with that PS1 wise are Tactics Ogre and Ogre battle. Which were SNES ports... so that doesn't hekp matter much.
Yeah, I'd rather go to Starbucks and pay 5 bucks for hot water with shitty taste... seriously, wtf.
I like how people even talk bad about VC using arguments that are simply false.
fedfed said:
|
You're all dead to me!
I agree, the Eshop prices are overpriced, concerning Virtual Console games at least. However, I think that it's more cruel that Nintendo does not put in much software into the Virtual Console. The 3DS has quite lacking titles and I still don't get why we don't have SNES games on it.
Check out my Upcoming Wii U Games 2014 Thread
3DS Friend Code: 4553 - 9954 - 4854. Name - David
famousringo said: Timeless classics like River City Ransom, Super Mario Bros 3 and Super Metroid are a bargain at any price. |
My girlfriend got me River City Ransom as a birthday gift like 3-5 years ago. Cost her like 25 bucks.
Kasz216 said: Front Mission 3 excluded i'd hope. Though outside Front Mission 3 i'd agree. The game that's held up the best for me along with that PS1 wise are Tactics Ogre and Ogre battle. Which were SNES ports... so that doesn't hekp matter much. |
I definitely still like it, but I've gotta say, now that I've played the first Front Mission (thanks for taking 12 years to bring it over, Square!) FM3 doesn't really hold up for me by comparison. You're much more limited in terms of how you build your wanzers. It feels a lot more like Final Fantasy or something where you get to the next town and there's a bunch of new, better gear to upgrade to, and that's it. You had a lot more tiers of gear in FM1, so you can always find the balance between performance and weight if you want to try a particular set up.
Plus FM1 lets you field a ridiculous amount of wanzers at once, and I prefer the larger battles that come from that. (It's a testament to just how spoiled for choice you are in terms of equipment that no two of my 20 something wanzers were built the same, versus FM3 where you have six units and I just used a few different builds). Although this part is purely a matter of taste, and I can certainly see why X-COM fans might prefer the smaller, tighter battles of FM3 where you have much less room for error.
The one PS1 game that seems to get better every time I play it is Castlevania: SOTN. 2D forever!
The games are a ripoff. They even were on the Wii VC 7 years ago.
Nintendo would be smart to make NES games 1 dollar at max or even make all FREE (sure you cant bring Square or EA games to the VC for free since the devs/publishers want money but still)
If at least all the Nintendo titles would be Free it would be a huge reason to buy the systems.
And if they would still insist on selling all games it should be like
$1 NES $3 SNES $5 N64 $10 Gamecube. I mean its all digital it is all OLD and its their fault alone that they made Wii VC games without thinking about the future etc.
They just need to programm a "container"/emulator and inject all the games into it. There is no need to code every single game individually and then claim THATS WHY ITS EXPENSIVE.
I for my part never ever paid a single cent for any VC game at all.
badgenome said:
I definitely still like it, but I've gotta say, now that I've played the first Front Mission (thanks for taking 12 years to bring it over, Square!) FM3 doesn't really hold up for me by comparison. You're much more limited in terms of how you build your wanzers. It feels a lot more like Final Fantasy or something where you get to the next town and there's a bunch of new, better gear to upgrade to, and that's it. You had a lot more tiers of gear in FM1, so you can always find the balance between performance and weight if you want to try a particular set up. Plus FM1 lets you field a ridiculous amount of wanzers at once, and I prefer the larger battles that come from that. (It's a testament to just how spoiled for choice you are in terms of equipment that no two of my 20 something wanzers were built the same, versus FM3 where you have six units and I just used a few different builds). Although this part is purely a matter of taste, and I can certainly see why X-COM fans might prefer the smaller, tighter battles of FM3 where you have much less room for error. The one PS1 game that seems to get better every time I play it is Castlevania: SOTN. 2D forever! |
Yeah, i actually do prefer FM3 to FM1. Though I was never a huge Wanzer customizer. More often then not I found it more fun and intesting to tool out the existing wanzers the best ways i could.
FM4 is in the middle.... and yet worse then both. I've yet to fully play through FM3... everytime I do, I stop what i assume is a third of the way through and play FM3.
I Liked the story a in FM3 a lot better though.
Horrorfest said:
|
you act as if Sony has feelings.... thats just sad.. lol