Movement is 360 degrees. You can use the control stick or the pad for this. The stick is required for "sneaking" up on pokemon.

I am post delta episode, which is post elite 4.

I am missing a few seafloor pokemon (such as clamperl), the various evolved or unevolved forms (eggs or evolving required) of pokemon I already have, the hidden pokemon from a few places such as meteor falls, and whatever can be found on victory road - the mirage spots - and the place that the ferry takes you to. <- Granted that's a lot but it's not so much that I couldn't be exploring Granite Cave.

I am doing Geometry Dash on Steam. For posterity:

1st level - 7 attempts
2nd level - 21 attempts
3rd level - 95 attempts

Oh, god... movement is real-time now? Like a 2d Zelda game?

--------

I just bought Undertale... I guess it would be two days ago now? It was the morning of the 1st. I had to buy it even though I'd already recently spent $60 on games because a new friend in the meat just bought it and I couldn't let myself be spoiled by him. The thing is, I can't bring myself to start it until I beat New Game+ on Shovel Knight because if I don't, I'll never get around to it and never write the review that I have half-formed in my head.

Speaking of Shovel Knight, I just ran across two game-design channels and it made me think that I should probably also either use this thread or create another for directing people to game critique/analysis/review things. Probably my favorite pastime of late is watching game critiques that discuss design.

I've also been playing through Guacamelee (Super Turbo Championship Edition) co-op with that new friend in the meat, and I may have some things to say about it at the end, because while it's a bit different than the Gold Edition I originally played (and mostly much easier on a controller), I'm finding it a little... bland? I was reminded of my opinion of the 100th episode of MLP: I find it's at its funniest/most enjoyable when it's doing its own thing rather than making references.

I do not understand what you mean by "real time" in a pokemon game. Explain?

How else do you manage analogue movement? What kind of grid handles 360 degree movement, or is finding the hidden pokemon some sort of mini-game with special rules?

Older pokemon games time more or less stopped when you werent moving. taking steps was required to trigger actions, or allow the AI to act. (Though the AI being able to do anything independently was rare, and typically confined to in engine cutscenes.)

So I imagine thats what he means by 'real time' as the older games were turn based even in the overworld. (Yes, there were no specific turns, but each action by the player allowed to the world a chance to take one, so it was a hidden simultaneous turn based system.)

No. It is not in real time. You play like every other pokemon game in existence, where you walk through the tall grass and trainers attack you on sight. They've just added a new kind of random encounter mechanic, like honey trees or fishing, where you have to move very slowly to trigger the event. And movemet is 360 degrees unless you are on the corner of something.

Those sound like two contradictory statements. I reiterate:

Are you moving at your own pace, or one grid space at a time? Are you moving in 360 degrees, or the four cardinal directions? Are you moving at variable speeds, or in one of two states?

You can move 360 degrees and it doesn't act like a grid unless you are at the corner of something. The "grid" is just a way they did the textures. Unless you are in the corner. If you are in a literal corner, you can only move 90 degrees worth of directions, while if you are rounding the corner of something it acts like you are on the edge of that area and you can only travel 180 degrees until you are no longer touching the wall at all.

^ Every so often, one grid space will start shaking and if you walk extra slowly you can step on it to trigger a battle. If you take too long it might stop shaking. But if you never move you'll never trigger a battle in the tall grass, and battles in the tall grass occur the same as in every other pokemon game in existence.


If you are still confused, you can google some gameplay.

I was and I did. Between Bulbapedia and seeing it in action, I understand how the game is actually arranged. Movement is not 360 degrees. You are given 8 directions, with a standard grid and now diagonal movement in addition to the cardinal directions. I'm wanting to say it very much acts like a grid, but I'm not willing to sit through another 20 minutes of boring let's players to see whether or not you can sit in-between grid spaces. If I still need to see the movement system, I should be able to ask for a few minutes from a friend's Y version in a few days.

Movement is definitely 360 degrees. At least in Alpha Sapphire, since that is the one I have turned on sitting right in front of me. The Dpad lets you move in the 8 cardinal directions, while the control stick lets you travel 360 degrees.

For the sneaking mechanic, here is an example of someone sneaking up on a couple of Jigglypuff:





This isn't something where we are discussing what we remember of the game. I have the thing sitting right in front of me and am testing it to make sure I know what I am talking about is 100% accurate. I can't come up with a better source then that, so if movement is not 360 degrees then I have a really, really, buggy version of the game.

So I opened up a fourth game today. Super Mario 3D Land. So um...... game isn't bad per se, but it's games like this that makes me sad Nintendo only really does one or of these per franchise per generation (it seems like). It's fun and I like it, but so far it is A) too easy and B) feels like I've done this all before.

Reading what I said, I realize I was coming off as overly antagonistic, and honestly I have no idea why I said things that way. Sorry about that.

Also, saying that you feel like you've done it all before in regards to Mario Land 3D Super is probably some sort of damning statement in itself, because the biggest complaint I hear lobbed at Nintendo from seemingly everywhere is that they "release the same 5 games over and over". Having kept up with the Pokémon games from first generation up through Gen V, and playing bits of a lot of Mario games and a sizeable chunk of a majority of the 3D Zelda games, I can say that they play it incredibly, unbelievably, boringly safe with their main franchises. I mean, there are exceptions, of course (I can think of Super Mario RPG right off the bat), but the main difference between iterations of most of their big mascot games are a different tileset/level layout and some slightly enhanced graphics.

Well, let me explain how Super Mario 3D is layed out, if I understand correctly from what I've read and seen in videos.

There are 8 worlds and 8 "special worlds" if I understand. The 8 special worlds are the 2nd half of the game and the "real" game, while the first 8 worlds are easier. You unlock luigi after beating special world 1. Once you have done the following with both characters, you unlock a "final super-hard" level:
- get all star coins
- beat all levels with a 1-up from the flag

If you die enough times in the first 8 worlds, the game will hand you a super tanooki suit that makes you invulnerable to anything but dying. If you die enough times after that, the game will literally spawn wings and fly you to the flag. This is as stupid as it sounds. <- Basically, the first 8 worlds are a massive tutorial that I feel is too **** easy to the point where it should not exist in its current form. With a "collect 100 star coins to access the 8th world castle" gate before the last level in world 8.

So far I am in world 5 and I have died maybe 7 times total? I don't know. I have not been keeping count but it is not a lot. And I hear it gets harder, but so far the "hidden" star coins have been trivially easy to get most of them, to the point where I seriously doubt I will need to backtrack that much to get at least 100. Part of the problem is that the levels are a little too easy, but the real problem so far has been that the "suit" power-ups completely negate most of the difficulty of most of the harder puzzles to the point of being laughable.

There is basically so much **** hand holding that it A) is demeaning as ****, B) I don't understand how anyone could need it, and C) I don't understand how someone who needs this could be expected to do finish the game once they take this stuff away.


Don't get me wrong. It's a fun game. But it's main value comes from the fact that mario is just fun, not that this is something innovative. It almost certainly checks all the boxes and it's a mario game. Hooray.

----------------


I disagree with your criticism of them playing it safe too much, at least with certain franchises. The following were games I thought were really cool and unique:
- Super Mario Galaxy (1 and 2)
- Metroid Prime 1-3 and Hunters
- all of the 3d zelda's but skyward sword

Other: M also at least tried something new, although it completely and absolutely sucked.

I would agree with super smash bros, some of the mario series, kirby, and a couple more though .

I think the most damning criticism of the new super smash bros is "this is the only smash game we are going to get this generation. That's why it sucks." This applies to a lot of their main franchises unfortunately. Most of them only get one release every 2-5 years, so it feels really bad when one is "worse" than the ones before it. Especially when its something like the new Metroid crap coming out on the 3ds next year that has been redesigned to be "accessible".

Super Mario Galaxy was really interesting in terms of level design and main mechanic (being gravity), but you have to admit that it follows mechanically in the footsteps of Mario Sunshine and Mario 64. That being said, I do agree with you in that it was unique and is really a lot more of what I think they should do with these main franchises.

Of the Metroid series, I've mainly played the 2d ones (Super, Fusion, and Zero Mission specifically), and of the 3d ones I've only played Prime (which was a hoot) and a few minutes of... I guess it was Prime Hunters? There was one for the DS when Prime was still new that had freaking awful controls. I remember being really interested in Other M when I heard it would be both 2d and 3d, but most of the criticism I've heard of the game has been regarding its characterization/narrative. At least as far as Prime is concerned, I think they did a good job making the game 3d, but I will heartily admit that the 2d games I played were nearly identical in play. Oh, and **** the SA-X with a conifer.

I've played through most of Ocarina of Time, Twilight Princess, Wind Waker, and Skyward Sword (not necessarily in that order and I've owned none of them). While each had some unique central "other world" mechanic, when I play them it still feels like they mainly just swapped the orders of the dungeons and items. Especially when comparing Skyward Sword to Twilight Princess, it feels like the transition from Fallout 3 to New Vegas -- a game that feels like a large mod but stands alone. Of those, Wind Waker stands out the most in terms of aesthetic, but they've all used the same rather linear setup of dungeon -> new item -> kill boss with new item -> use new item to get to next dungeon.

Now, don't get me wrong, I do love the games Nintendo makes and theirs are the only console I have any interest in. That said, a lot of their releases are from a much smaller pool of IPs than the games of their competitors in Microsoft and Sony, and on top of that most of those titles are familiar, family-friendly, and often very newcomer-friendly. (Shovel Knight is also newcomer friendly and doesn't hold your hand for anything.)

First things first, complaining about the dungeon structure of Zelda means that you are picking at a fundamental part of the game's layout, the same way you would if you said all pokemon games were too similar because they have 8 gyms you have to do in a certain order. That is not a problem with the game, and you should not criticize it as such. The entire appeal of Zelda is this particular story structure.

^ Getting that out of the way, your comment makes me believe that you have not played any of the 3d zeldas recently. The gameplay is drastically different between ocarina of time, majora's mask, wind waker, and twilight princess. As in, the actual items given to the character throughout the story make the games play out very differently. The games are also presented to the player in drastically different styles, both thematically and when it comes to the storytelling experience each one puts forward. Saying they are all too similar literally means, to me, that you have not played them recently and/or you simply weren't paying enough attention to what you were doing at the time.

^ I don't like Skyward Sword, and I think the recent Zelda games are all "meh", but I want to defend the other 3d ones.

Edit: Give me a moment to better defend my viewpoint in another post.

Ocarina of Time

This game starts out by asking you to collect the spiritual stones of earth, fire, and water. As a kid, this lets you learn the layout of the land, but more importantly it forces you to meet and grow a little attached to all the characters you will meet in your quest. Saria, Malon, Darunia, Ruto, Impa, and Zelda are the main ones you are supposed to grow attached to in this stage, and they are all some of my favorite Zelda characters. But we also have Malon, Biggoron, Mido, the kokiri, a few specific gorons, the citizens of clocktown, Kaepora Gaebora, King Zora, and even the happy mask salesmen (and customers) who make a notable enough impression that I remember them fondly to this day. Oh and Dampe. Who could forget poor Dampe. His gravedigging tour is the best rng pasttime ever, rivaled only by Dampe rng in Majora's Mask.

After finishing your main quest, you can (and I usually do) take a break to do all the little, character driven sidequests where we get to meet more interesting people. From Bombchu Bowling to the skull kid game, each of these is a rememberable little sequence that, while I don't particularly remember some of them fondly (curse you you stupid bombchu bowling alley), I still remember them and they were somewhat unique to this game.


After going to the temple of time, we get the ocarina of time and we get to move 7 years forward into the future. Here, something terrible has happened, and it means we are going to have to go save all our friends from their fates. This is where the game really starts to get serious, as we are introduced to the concepts of boss keys and much harder puzzles. But we are also introduced to some of the better Zelda bosses ever. All of them were well-designed, and from Phantom Ganon to Bongo Bongo each of these fights is at least somewhat memorable and unique. We also get some of the cooler and more unique items we ever get in Zelda games, even though a lot of them repeat later. My particular favorites are the hover boots, which I don't think we got in another 3d Zelda (the closest thing is the pegasus boots in Zelda II).

All in all, I would say it's a good game. And since it's the first 3D one, I don't have to justify it much better here.

Majora's Mask

Let's face it. While Ocarina of Time had a really good story, it was more Dark Souls esque where you were just given tidbits here and there outside of the main interactions with a few important characters. In Majora's Mask, they DRASTICALLY improved upon this. Each character not only has their own unique story, but their own TIMELINE that you will experience on your many repeats of these 3 day cycles. And to be blunt, although my favorite characters aren't in this game it has the best story-telling of any of them overall. From the little girl who has a tearful reunion with her father after you have healed him (she previously had to lock him in the closet while he was undergoing a ghastly transformation) to the postman who does his duty until the last, each character in this game has their own personality and it's just really, really well done.

Aside from the drastically improved storytelling (the best of any Zelda game to date), we also got major gameplay changes in the happy masks. And I'm not just talking about the transformation masks. I'm talking about all 20 of the masks that give you some unique power and have their own unique questline. My favorite is the Couple's Mask, but each one is an item and memory I cherish here, and each adds a little something to the game. I mean..... who can't at least crack a small smile while they are doing the piece of heart with the chicks and the Bremen Mask? That's like the cutest thing ever.

Overall, I think the storytelling, the deeper themes and the way the game tries to make you think, and the addition of all the extra side quests, happy masks, and the time element here makes this game an innovation in the series, compared to ocarina of time.


Wind Waker

Majora's Mask recently passed it, but this used to be my favorite Zelda. To be blunt..... the innovation made by this game is that it is so **** big with so much stuff to do in it compared to the previous two that I do not feel I need another argument here. Maybe it's just the fact that I remember the unique thing to do at all 64 grid coordinates, plus a whole bunch of more minor ones. The things like sailing and the unique art style are just gravy here.


Twilight Princess
Again, there were some gameplay additions here such as the wolf and some new items that make the game play very differently a large amount of time compared to the first 3, and that alone is enough for me. Along with another new art style.
It is SO GOOD that the uniqueness here, combined with the following point, justifies it being a worthy inclusion of the series. Everything was extremely well done, and there isn't anything I would complain about in this game.

This game, I feel, has the best Link. All of these technically function in different timelines/universes, so while they all have the same main character they are all technically different. And this game has THE best one, where they did the most, I feel, to make you care about the character and THEIR motivations, that weren't just the overarching "save the land of X" that we usually get. Wind Waker kind of has that, but it's art style isn't as good at conveying it. We also get THE single best sidekick link has EVER had in Midna, who is probably my favorite non-link non-zelda character in the series EVER. And the character who probably goes through the most character development we've ever seen in a single Zelda game. Overall.... I just think this game had the best main characters, at least for how much I cared about them, and the gameplay is so good and unique enough that I don't think they phoned it in here.


Conclusion
^ To put it bluntly, after 100% each of these I think they are all VERY GOOD games on their own merits, and each is unique enough that I have so many good memories of each one that I would not change any of them at all (although the **** 3DS copies are making me come to grips with this). I cannot legitimately complain that the developers did a bad job on any of them, even though I can and will say that the ESRB ratings system probably did.

Thats not really a huge sample size for a 1st party developer over 30 odd years. Especially when measured against the titles which played it safe within the first party IPs. Even less so when you take away sequels to 'risky' games. Ergo, SMG 2 was not a risk after SMG was a success.

Please read the line immediately after the one you quoted.

I obviously did not list and consider every single game they made, as shown by the equally small sample size from the list of things I gave that I did agree with her on.

I am at 6-1. I have 59 star coins (needed 50 to get into 5-castle) with 63 lives but I've lost all my power-ups for the first time. Feels great.