Final Fantasy to Streetfighter, Suikoden to Katamari Damacy, use this forum to talk about *GASP* videogames! The latest releases, your favourites, or ask for help.
Hi all, i'm a newbie at games and i was wondering if anyone could give me some names of some games that would be good for a beginner? I'm looking for an easy game with a simple battlesystem (rpgs). I don't care what system it's on, my favorite types of games are action, adventure, roleplaying, dungeon crawler, god games, and city builders.
I don't know. A lot of games are billed as games for beginners and such, but I often don't see where it would make much difference. As far as easiness goes though, most FF games are pretty easy, especiallly the latter day ones (FF7 and beyond) , but I don't count FF12 in that because it's a bit of a long ass grind and anyway the game sucks way too much to be worth it. Chrono Trigger is a pretty easy and quick rpg so it's probably good for a beginner as well. Suikoden is another short one and certainly not too hard, not the easiest maybe, but shouldn't present a problem. the infinitely better sequel is a little longer, but probably an easier game even. Later entries in the series may be a little bit on the long side for a beginner, but if you play the first 2 and enjoy, then 3 and 5 are also worthwhile. I don't know what else. I can definitely think of other good ones, but what's best for a beginner, I don't know.
Of course, you know your favorite types of games so you obviously must have played some games. Maybe if I have an idea of what you've played I can work better from there.
Yuka wrote:Oh god yeah. PSone games all look horrible now.
Sorry, but even though the blocky characters in FF7 look ridiculous, it's still a terrific looking game on account of the beautiful prerendered backgrounds. I still rate FF7 as a better looking game overall than FFX, because FFX abandoned prerendered BG in favor of bland 3d environments, Of course, most PSX games looked pretty crap even at the time, so if you're talking about those I agree, except that it's nothing new.
Last edited by Lord Golbez on Tue Mar 18, 2008 2:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
there was a robocop game for the snes that was near impossible. finally we called in our asian friend, gave him the game, and placed bets on how long it would take him to beat it.
Which really isn't going over. That's like saying "Oops. The price went over." in Price is Right and doing it over again. Makes no sense. You have to allow one thing to go over the other or else it has to be exact. So if the guy had said 2 years, would you have given it to him?
Yes. 2 years would be like bidding $1 in this case. You're basically just betting that everyone else is totally wrong. If one guy had bet 30 years, he would have won.
Yeah, but the question is why alter it? In The Price is Right, it's the guesses that can't go over the actual price, but here you're saying it's the actual time it takes that shouldn't go over the guesses. The whole thing is reversed!
Because it makes more sense that way. Perhaps the RDM explained it badly the first time around. Forget about the price going over the guesses. Think of it as the closest without going under.
But it (referring to everything by it's (everything) proper name in parenthesis) is so much clearer than no doing it (referring to everything by it's (everything) proper name in parenthesis)
More importantly, was there money on the line and did 3 months guy collect? If he did, did he have to wait until the game was beaten or did he get it as soon as it was clear he won?
