StickyGreenGamer
Rookie
If you don't mind, I'd like you take a step back to 1999 for a moment. Back to the days of the Nintendo 64, and in regards to a specific title, WinBack. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WinBack For those who haven't played, since there is no review from GR.
As a young man, this was one of my favorite titles for the N64. I found it fun and enjoyed the action and wanna-be Tom Clancy storyline. While I haven't had the chance to even touch the game in nearly 8-10 years, I remember the gameplay very well, and could probably still navigate the first few levels with good precision. The most distinct thing I remember about the game though is how well it was suited to my style of playing shooters.
I am not the guy who goes for the biggest gun right away. I'm a conservationist. I'm the guy who will play entire titles using handguns, saving my ammo in the bigger guns for the important thing; boss fights. In WinBack, I found a game designed perfectly for this style.
The handgun had unlimited ammo, and decent enough power. If you were willing to put in the grunt work, it would not let you down. Doing so, you saved the ammo you had for the few alternative weapons (only a shotgun, sub-machine gun, and a rocket launcher if I remember correctly). This was useful, because the handgun wasn't so practical when dealing with the bosses.
As the years have passed, and shooters progressed, there is no question that they've eased up in requiring such staunch ammo watching. Ammo is either everywhere, or so easily obtainable or unnecessary that there is no need to conserve. Shoot till the gun clicks, then do a quick b-line to the nearest supply.
So, I'll pose my question now. Which do you prefer?
The more conservationist approach of having to be careful not only with how much, but what kind of ammo you use. Or the go all out approach, with the constant security of being able to refill as quickly as you run out.
I think my stance should be obvious. But given the possibility that someone might not have determined it, or determined it correctly, I'm a conservationist.
As a young man, this was one of my favorite titles for the N64. I found it fun and enjoyed the action and wanna-be Tom Clancy storyline. While I haven't had the chance to even touch the game in nearly 8-10 years, I remember the gameplay very well, and could probably still navigate the first few levels with good precision. The most distinct thing I remember about the game though is how well it was suited to my style of playing shooters.
I am not the guy who goes for the biggest gun right away. I'm a conservationist. I'm the guy who will play entire titles using handguns, saving my ammo in the bigger guns for the important thing; boss fights. In WinBack, I found a game designed perfectly for this style.
The handgun had unlimited ammo, and decent enough power. If you were willing to put in the grunt work, it would not let you down. Doing so, you saved the ammo you had for the few alternative weapons (only a shotgun, sub-machine gun, and a rocket launcher if I remember correctly). This was useful, because the handgun wasn't so practical when dealing with the bosses.
As the years have passed, and shooters progressed, there is no question that they've eased up in requiring such staunch ammo watching. Ammo is either everywhere, or so easily obtainable or unnecessary that there is no need to conserve. Shoot till the gun clicks, then do a quick b-line to the nearest supply.
So, I'll pose my question now. Which do you prefer?
The more conservationist approach of having to be careful not only with how much, but what kind of ammo you use. Or the go all out approach, with the constant security of being able to refill as quickly as you run out.
I think my stance should be obvious. But given the possibility that someone might not have determined it, or determined it correctly, I'm a conservationist.
:
