Ironically EU shorthand for Europe and European Union

Gameboy SP plays GB, GBC and GBA games with a backlight in the screen. If that’s not enough, there are plenty of videos online on how to upgrade the SP. Authentic but optimized. Best of both worlds!

Gotta be Vivi. Just a loveable guy

Some things:

(a) Retro gaming is an extremely wide at this point. It houses multiple generations if extreme upgrades from PS2 to Spectrum. The further back you go the more restricted it becomes. So if you want to get into retro, I think it might be good to move backwards to gain a tolerance. As you go back QoL will slowly get worse as we’ve built upon them over the years.

(b) Gateway games are difficult because for me a gateway is a way to gain interest, it was never just picking the best of the old games. When Megaman 9 came out it was good enough that I went back and started playing the old games. Because I enjoyed it and it emulated the originals. If there are some retro-inspired games you enjoy, going back to the games that inspired it is a good gateway (for me anyway)

© I’m not sure how this feed feels about it but feel free to use save states. Arcade difficulty is real and sometimes saving can be complicated. Just remember that they exist when considering an opinion. Your feelings on contra may vary depending on if you use save states to beat it.

So if N64 is your “modern” retro I’d probably recommend Mario 64, Ocarina of Time (slow start be aware), Kirby 64 and Paper Mario. From there if you like Mario 64 and Want another Banjo.

I think SNES JRPG is a bit tricky. I don’t really remember my avenue into it. I believe it was GBA and DS JRPG that gave me a tolerance for more simple combat systems.

3 is noticeably missing but even ignoring that s lot of the weird games are missing.

Recently(ish) the necrodancer Zelda game is a weird and wonderful collaboration. Still have no idea how the got the opportunity for that or how much Nintendo was on them for it but I’m sure many Indies would bend over backwards if they could make something with Wario for example.

I appreciate how concise it is but am worried about airflow

I’m not going to be as positive as the others. For every person who seeds everything there are those doing the bare minimum. But they will do the bare minimum because they’re in a good ecosphere of rarities that are seeded and don’t want to lose that benefit

The title mean very little. As long as my wages are going up, I don’t care if a company want to call me even a junior developer

The managers who make the decisions is also unclear as power differs on the company. They could care all the way up to the CEO but if the CEO puts an unrealistic deadline, the game has an unrealistic deadline

I’m a bit confused by this message since I was suggesting JRPG as a genre wasn’t clear, and the argument(?) Is that Dark Souls isn’t a JRPG and you’ve sub-classified a bunch of different JRPGs how I agree.

If the argument is that we can still use JRPG in conjunction, I think this is valid but I still feel that coining things based on country of origin isa bit off, almost like insinuating a stereotype when we also agree they don’t have to follow it.

This just goes back to JRPG being vague and not giving any real info anyway.

If I told you I like Dark Souls which is arguably a JRPG or a more obvious Earthbound, why would it be better to say ah, “Disgaea or Kingdom Hearts are JRPG, you’ll like them”.

I wasn’t suggesting all games should be labeled “earthbound-inspired”, the term JRPG is so broad that just suggesting it’s inspiration is more informative.

I know what you mean but what you’ve done is just define two sets of games with varying differences in mechanics. So only WRPGs can assign attributes and JRPGs must have ensemble casts? There are many components of games that can transcend genres. A racing game like Mario Party can have an ensemble cast with unique abilities, A game like Sims can have attribute spending to create a player build. Locking these to genres doesn’t help understand as you suggest but that doesn’t mean we should stop trying.

It’s much easier to used these parts as extra descriptors and even better when you also add perspectives

• BG3: An turn based strategy [with complex choice]
• Valkyria Chronicles: A turn based strategy [with player recruitment]
• Disgaea: An turn based strategy [with unlockable job systems]
• Wargroove: A turn based strategy [with resource management systems]

I’d even prefer “Earthbound-inspired RPG” as thats more clear on what I’m going to be playing

Two things on this,

• X-Com can easily be classified a turn-based strategy rather than Turn-based Action
• This confusion still exists in JRPG. Why would you suggest Disgaea is a JRPG but Fire Emblem or X-Com isn’t?

Ah that’s my bad, when I think about FF I still think of the earlier games but the newer games aren’t in that bandcamp. Should have suggested dragon quest

I disagree with both article and your point. The J is unhelpful when we can just label them turned-based action. This is just an issue of grandfathering a genre which means very little, is incredibly decisive and even unhelpful. It’s easy to imagine someone who like Final Fantasy may like a game like LISA. But harder to suggest someone who like ~~Final Fantasy ~~ Dragon Quest will like Kingdom Hearts, Demon Gaze or Disgaea. Just split JRPGs into mechanical genres. Turn-Based Action, Action RPG, Turn/Tile-based Strategy.

This issue extends to more genres (Generally RPG and Action) but I think it’s probably the easiest one to start moving away from

If you didn’t guess that last paragraph was specifically about Death Stranding. No reason to fault that game for what it is

I think adding difficulty options is fine but the accessibility of difficulty is risky because lowering difficulty is so enticing to the average person. I love souls games but I admittedly, in games where I can change difficulty on the fly, swap the difficulty to quickly move forward if I hit a wall. On the other hand, I spent 8 hours fighting the Guardian Ape in Sekiro and beating them is my favorite gaming experience of the last 5 years. I am pro accessibility but there should be some disadvantages to doing so (ironic, less accessible accessibility options). The easy one is making them a one-chance option. For example, moving your difficulty down from hard to normal, forces you to play the rest of the game at normal (Dragon Quest XI does this). There are other considerations that can be done, hidden difficulty that gives concessions (Crash Bandicoot, RE4) or attempt to estimate a flexible difficulty.

I think with difficulty there’s always going to be a question of “can we make this easier”.

I think the obvious query is “why should I be punished because you can’t hold back your urge to decrease the difficulty” but the reply could easily be “why should Devs do more work so you can play a game not aimed at you?”

Tl;dr: Shits complicated, cheat engine is always an option for the time being. People who mock you are losers.

Slow grounded movement in open world games is so dumb. Why the fuck do you think I want to spend 5minutes walking across a plain or on a path I can’t that forces me to move slowly. I do appreciate how some games like this actively just take control for you so you can do a chore (Final Fantasy XIV autodrive, RDR2 lets you automatically move on a path while riding a horse) butIf your open world is that boring, can you just add a mode that brings me to my destination?

I’d much rather a more densely populated world on a smaller scale (Yakuza) some fun extreme forms of movement (Gravity Rush, Tears of the Kingdom). Heck even just have a faster option for mobility on basic terrain is better (Elden Ring). If there was a big desert and you gave me a dune buggy that goes 100mph, that feels way better then having to walk/trod around a hilly or mountainous landscape dotted with areas you have to move around or carefully move through.

Obviously if you lean into that mechanic as being intentionally frustrating, feel free.