Special Attacks Versus Physical Attacks [Debate]

Debate: Physical Attacks Versus Special Attacks | Video Games | Gaming | RPG | Magic Attacks | DoublexJump.com

krismii
When it comes to RPGs, my preferred method of fighting is more on the physical side. My favorite classes tend to be thieves, archers, warriors, characters with fantastic and strong weapons. Magic attacks are fun and all as well, but I always found it more satisfying to vanquish opponents up close with blades.

rachmii
Those characters are fun and all, but I’ve always preferred the magic-based characters. I love wizards, sorcerers, and mages of any kind. I think elemental attacks are cool and attacking from afar is better than getting up close and personal.

krismii
I feel as if attacking from afar sometimes is a cop-out. For instance, when you play as Zelda and I play as Sheik in Smash Bros., it can get annoying quickly when you decide to spam Din’s Fire from across the stage. In most RPGs, as well, magic attacks are limited with magic points. Physical attacks and weapons can be used whenever you want however many times you want.

rachmii
Fight or flight and I think it’s always better to fly. If you can attack from afar, I say it’s a fair game no matter how “annoying” it may be. You just have to get good at dodging and figure out a counter-attack. I like being farther away because then your sword can’t reach me. Plus, you need to get to me which allows me to immediately counter if you get too close.

krismii
Once I do get close enough, a flurry of kicks or punches can keep you immobile enough for me to send you off the stage. In the event we’re not playing Smash Bros., what do you do when your mage’s spells run out of magic points? Swords and daggers, in most games, are always reliable and deal out great damage. Magic attacks tend to have strengths and weaknesses when it comes to them being effective against certain enemies.

Rachel Mii Double Jump
I try my best to keep magic potions and such on hand. Honestly, most games these days make it all too easy to make sure you don’t run out of magic points or so. Depending on the game, physical weapons such as swords and daggers have weaknesses as well. Take Octopath Traveler, for example. Sometimes you can’t use any of your physical weapons and only need your magic.

krismii
If we’re using Octopath Traveler as an example, the opposite is true as well. Not only that, the majority of enemies’ weaknesses were regular weapons as opposed to the magical attacks. Physical attacks and weapons tend to be more versatile as well, whereas you can only have so many magical and elemental attacks. There’s only so many fire and wind attacks games can come up with.

Rachel Mii Double Jump
That may be true, but… magic attacks at just cooler. Enough said.

Which side do you prefer? Let us know about them in the comments below! If you like this post, please share it around.

Connect with us:
Twitter | Instagram | Tumblr | Twitch

Advertisements

Online Features: Yay or Nay? [Debate]

Debate Online Features | Nintendo | Video Games | Gaming | DoublexJump.com

krismii
Online capabilities and features have become pretty staple when it comes to video games nowadays. All of the current generation of consoles have some sort of online network that allows you to link up and play with friends not only in your own living room but around the world. While there are certain features that I would like to see expanded when it comes to online capabilities, I believe video games as a whole have become better with online access.

rachmii
Online features are a huge step for gaming. Gaming is, after all, about connectivity and getting to know other gamers. However, while it’s great to get to be able to play games with my long-distance friends, I think I could do without the online features. I like being able to play through the game on my own and have friends beside me to play some local co-op so we can talk to each other in person.

krismii
Sometimes local co-op isn’t that feasible, though, but online lets you still play together. It’s best when there is a decent chat system or you’re able to talk through microphones, of course. Being able to play online with others does promote community and being social. Another perk is games being able to be patched if there’s an issue with them. Companies are able to directly send the fixes to games via the Internet and, while they may take some time to download, it’s better than trying to get a cartridge of the game fixed.

rachmii
Playing together in-person isn’t always doable, but neither is playing online sometimes. Most often than not, when we play online, we have a hard time getting the volume just right. I remember when we had tried to played Minecraft online with our brother-in-law on the Xbox. Our headsets didn’t work even though we just bought them. Which is another thing, it’s super expensive to buy the headsets and mics just to be able to communicate with your friends. And don’t even get me started on the lag – when you spend a while setting everything up and then you don’t even get the chance to play.

krismii
Well, yes, but our WiFi can be special that way, haha. As for the headsets, we probably didn’t set them up right because we had no idea what we were doing back then, especially when it came to the Xbox. In the majority of cases, online gaming is pretty smooth since the Internet is such a huge part of everyday life. Depending on how you play, it doesn’t have to be too expensive to play with online friends as well. Discord has plenty of options to talk and hear each other while playing, usually on PC but you can also have it set up with the laptop’s integrated webcam while playing console games.

Rachel Mii Double Jump
Our WiFi is special, yeah, but lag is everywhere and happens to everyone. Take Super Smash Brothers Ultimate, for example. The online features for that game are awful with the lag and that’s not just us. Smash is such an awesome, universal game, and we can only play in local co-op without wanting to rip our hair out.

krismii
I think Smash Bros. Ultimate is an exception rather than the norm since Nintendo, for as awesome as they are, haven’t quite figured out the online capabilities for that game. With that said, we’ve had good luck with Mario Kart and battling and trading Pokemon with the Let’s Go titles. You also can’t forget about the phenomenon of games like Overwatch and Fortnite, not to mention World of Warcraft and other MMORPGs that wouldn’t be able to function without online. New genres came into existence thanks to online features, and being able to share those games with friends everywhere is such a big positive outcome thanks to online networks.

Rachel Mii Double Jump
Fair enough. Though those are all games we don’t play. Having online is great and all and I have done it here and there, but I could do without it.

Which side are you on? Let us know in the comments below! If you like this post, please share it around.

Save the date! We’re doing a special Twitch Stream to celebrate the Nintendo Switch! You can learn more about it here.

Connect with us:
Twitter | Instagram | Tumblr | Twitch

The Legend Of Zelda Dungeons Vs. Divine Beasts [Debate]

Debate: Divine Beasts Vs Dungeons | The Legend of Zelda | Nintendo | Video Games | Gaming | DoublexJump.com

krismii
There was some controversy regarding the Divine Beasts — and, I suppose, the shrines — in The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild replacing the traditional dungeons. Many fans of the franchise miss the traditional dungeons and, I’ll admit, it was a bit jarring to me as well to have the Divine Beasts instead. I’m probably in the minority here when I say that I wouldn’t mind if Divine Beasts, or mini-dungeons, were featured in future Zelda games instead of the traditional dungeons.

rachmii
I did enjoy the Divine Beasts and the Shrines. It was a nice change of pace. However, I’d be lying if I said I didn’t miss the dungeons or temples in the other Legend of Zelda games. There aren’t nearly as many dungeons in the games as there are shrines, but they’re all unique from one another and can take some time to complete. There’s a lot of exploring involved and once you get to the end, it’s satisfying.

krismii
It can be satisfying to explore and complete the Divine Beasts as well. The Divine Beasts are, essentially, a big puzzle with a boss at the end. They’re the reward after exploring the main area of the over world and, unlike the traditional dungeons, you have more freedom of how to complete them. Traditional dungeons tend to have the obligatory dungeon item, no matter how awesome they are, while Divine Beasts give you more rein on how to defeat them.

rachmii
True, though while you have more freedom, they’re usually smaller. There are a lot of shrines and, after completing a bunch of them, you start to repeat some ways to go through them. You get a new item in each dungeon while you only have the Sheikah Slate to get through all the shrines. Also, each dungeon has an awesome boss at the end while the Divine Beasts had a different form of the same boss. Plus, there’s only four of them. In other Zelda games, there’s usually about seven give or take.

krismii
I disagree that you “only” have the Sheikah Slate in order to help you get through the Divine Beasts and the shrines. You do also get plenty of different types of weapons — swords, clubs, axes, various arrows, the paraglider — to help you navigate the Divine Beasts and shrines, as well as the abilities compacted into the Sheikah Slate. It’s an extra challenge that the weapons and shields break as well. Having four Divine Beasts and over a hundred shrines, most with unique puzzles with multiple ways to solve them, makes up for the seven or so traditional dungeons.

Rachel Mii Double Jump
Fair enough, but because the weapons break so often it’s harder to hold onto your resources if you have trouble at a certain spot. Also, I like quality over quantity. I enjoyed going searching for the shrines and all, but again, I like the variety of the dungeons. The Divine Beasts were the same except they were different shapes. The puzzles are cool, but there are no stakes. There are no enemies to really get through or anything. You just wander around until you figure it out. There’s a lot more to do in the dungeons.

krismii
Being able to have all sorts of different weapons, abilities, and ways to complete a Divine Beast — or shrine — gives you more replayability. The Divine Beasts did have some enemies, and the stakes were the Champion’s ability that you gained after defeating whatever Ganon-Blight was at the end of it as well as helping you against Calamity Ganon in the final match. Not only that, you can explore the Divine Beasts and the world in whatever order you want. It’s not linear like traditional dungeons, giving you more freedom and ways to explore and go through the story however you want.

Rachel Mii Double Jump
I see your points, but I still think the dungeons are better than the Divine Beasts, as clever as they were. I guess we’ll let the readers decide this one.

Which side are you on? Let us know in the comments below! If you like this post, please share it around.

Connect with us:
Twitter | Instagram | Tumblr | Twitch

Best Multiplayer Game: Super Mario Party Vs. Super Smash Brothers Ultimate [Debate]

debate best multiplayer | super mario party | super smash brothers ultimate | nintendo switch | DoublexJump.com

rachmii
2018 was a great year for gamers. Nintendo especially spoiled us at the end of the year with quite a few games. Two of those games being popular multiplayers – Super Mario Party and Super Smash Brother Ultimate. The question is, which is a better multiplayer?

krismii
Both the Mario Party and Smash Bros. franchises started off on the Nintendo 64 and probably have been the result of much yelling and backstabbing fun among friends and family. While I’ve greatly enjoyed both games, my pick for the better multiplayer would be Super Mario Party. A big reason for that is the accessibility for non-gamers and casual gamers alike to join right in. We have a friend who loves the game whenever we bring our Switch over to her place, even though she’s not a gamer herself. Smash Brothers Ultimate was definitely a learning curve when she gave it a try, and she was much more at ease when we played Super Mario Party later.

rachmii
Sure, Super Mario Party may be easier and slightly more casual for everyone to jump right in, but do you typically have game nights with friends who are “non-gamers?” If you’re going to have play a game with a group, my pick would be Super Smash Brothers Ultimate. Speaking of having game nights, Smash allows up to eight players at a time, whereas only four people can play Super Mario Party at a time. Smash takes a few minutes so others aren’t wait long for a turn while Super Mario Party takes at least an hour.

krismii
For Smash, it depends on the mode, your personal rules, and the skill of people playing. If you decide to do a stock match among eight players, those who get lost in the chaos — not to mention potential lag from dropped frames with everyone attacking each other — and get out of the match early will have to sit and wait anyway. With Super Mario Party, half of the game is luck, giving everyone playing even footing right from the get-go. Even if the traditional Mario Party game takes at least an hour, I assume you’re committing some time to hang out with said friends and won’t mind waiting and watching other people’s turns. After all, despite the luck, Super Mario Party takes some strategy too, and your friends’ turns may affect your character.

Rachel Mii Double Jump
The lag is really just in the online mode. Despite that, the online mode for Smash is better than Mario Party anyway. There’s so much more you can do. But Smash is faced paced and it doesn’t matter if people get out of the match early. They’re still not waiting too long for the next match. Speaking of the modes, there’s a whole lot more you can do in Smash. You can customize games to everyone’s liking and even set up challenges for yourself. Super Mario Party has only a handful of modes and you have to play by the rules no matter what.

krismii
There are more modes in Smash, one of the biggest ones which is only single-player. While I enjoy World of Light, I would have loved a co-op mode for it. As for the online mode, we haven’t heard too many great things about it. What’s the point of being able to fight online if the lag is awful? Yes, you can do more challenges in Smash, but with Super Mario Party it’s simple to just play. Pick your character, pick the mode, and buckle up for the ride. The modes in Super Mario Party may be few, but they are diverse — co-op, music and rhythm, traditional boards, and mini games.

Rachel Mii Double Jump
Despite your points, I still think Super Smash Brothers Ultimate is the better multiplayer game. It’s quick and easy to pick up, fun to button-mash, and great with a large group of friends. There’s always something new to try as well. Super Smash Brothers Ultimate definitely has my vote.

krismii
Super Mario Party is arguably even easier to pick up to play, with great mini games incorporated into the bigger modes, and brings everyone together with it’s simple premise, even with the strategy and luck that goes with it. While you brought up fantastic points for Super Smash Brothers Ultimate, I’m going to go with Super Mario Party.

Which side are you on? Let us know in the comments below! If you liked this post, please share it around.

Connect with us:
Twitter | Instagram | Tumblr | Twitch

Debate: Music Vs. Graphics

Debate Music vs Graphics | Video games | gaming | blogging | DoublexJump.com

krismii
You know how people say, “Never judge a book by its cover?” People judge books by their covers all the time, that’s what the covers are for. You’re supposed to judge the covers, as they are potential readers’ first impression of whether or not they may like the book. Graphics are the same for video games. When researching games, I check out screenshots to get a taste of whether or not I’d enjoy the game based on how it looks. To me, graphics are a bit more important than music when it comes to my opinion on video games.

rachmii
While I can agree with that since I too look at the graphics to decide if I like the art style or not, I have to say that’s all it is – it’s an art style. Art is unique and interpretation in varies ways depending on who is looking at it and what they’re favorite kinds of styles are. With that said, I don’t think graphics are necessarily important to making a game “good.” All it does is visually show off the characters. Meanwhile, the music has a lot to say about the game. Following along with the story and plot of the game, the music needs to be appropriate and add a certain emotion and atmosphere to the game play. That’s why I think music is more important than graphics.

krismii
Music does add a lot to games’ atmosphere, I agree, but if the graphics don’t capture a person’s interest in the game, no one is going to play the game and hear the awesome music. Not only that, the graphics of video games can be wildly different from game to game — cel-shaded, realistic, pixel, watercolor-like visuals, are just a few of the different styles that can make a game. Look at how many variations of art styles the Legend of Zelda franchise has had over the years. Seeing and experiencing a game with amazing graphics really helps to immerse the players and connect them with the characters they are controlling.

rachmii
True, but how often do you hear about people complaining about the graphics? Depending on the game itself, the graphics are certainly a hit or miss. People will try the game anyway and complain about the art style. Music, on the other hand, can very well be a hit or miss too. I’ve mentioned before that a certain song might not fit a certain part of the game, but how many times do you use the music as context clues for what’s going on in the game? Or the deadly silence that tells you a boss battle is coming up?

krismii
I concede that graphics may be more hotly contended rather than music when it comes to critiquing video games, but that can also prove how invested people are in the art style of games. No two gamers’ tastes are alike (although you and I come pretty close), so to see arguments or even disappointment over a game’s graphic style just shows how passionate people are about the game’s look. Graphics can be used as context clues as well. Aside from the obvious healing spots or the game throwing healing packs at you, how about when horror or stealth games start using shadows and dim lights to set the mood? Or small movies that showcase the arena right before the boss enters? While music — or lack of it — certainly helps in amping up the tension before a boss fight, if the graphics don’t adequately show me a terrifying boss, I’m not going to be intimidated.

Rachel Mii Double Jump
Fair enough. But how many times do you coo and awe at the graphics of a game? When you first turn on a brand new game, sure. You’re amazing and impressed at the various people and places you come across – especially Breath of the Wild and other games on the Switch. Music, however, changes and upgrades throughout the game. The art style never changes while the battle music for some can be completely different the further you get into the game. You’re always surprised.

krismii
I am always in awe of graphics on my favorite games, haha! Graphics are what got me interested in Gris, they’re still what I think about in Breath of the Wild, and I am floored by the amount of detail in the artwork of Smash Bros. Ultimate. Not only that, a game with good graphics keeps inviting you back like home. Music does that as well, I know, but it’s the visual immersion that’s important to me.

Rachel Mii Double Jump
Well, I guess that’s what it comes down to then… are you more a visual person or an auditory person? We’ll let everyone else decide.

Which side are you on? Let us know in the comments below!

Connect with us:
Twitter | Instagram | Tumblr | Twitch

Debate: Starfox Adventures VS Pokemon Colosseum [Gamecube Edition]

Debate Starfox Adventures VS Pokemon Colosseum | Nintendo Gamecube | Video games | Gaming | DoublexJump.com

krismii
We have a ton of games and the Nintendo GameCube was one of our favorite eras. While Rachel and I tend to have similar tastes in the games we play — considering all the time we play together — we do have differing opinions on which games are better than others. Randomly picking a couple of our favorites, I am defending Starfox Adventures against Rachel’s choice of Pokemon Colosseum. For one thing, Starfox Adventures has a larger world compared to Pokemon Colosseum, one that has gorgeous graphics and is fun to explore.

rachmii
Hey, no fair that you get to lead off with your argument right away when you’ve barely finished explaining the debate. But whatever. I chose Pokemon Colosseum because – drumroll – Pokemon! Even though this wasn’t your typical Pokemon game, I loved having the Pokemon on the big screen. I mean, it was a Pokemon game on the big screen that was close enough to being a main game.

krismii
The debate is which is a better GameCube game of the two random choices, Starfox Adventures or Pokemon Colosseum, haha! Starfox Adventure lets the players to explore freely as Fox in a beautiful world full of other characters. The combat system was decent with its real-time movements. Pokemon Colosseum used the same Pokemon battle formula as its main core games and the N64 Stadium games, which is great, but the game was definitely more of a linear story than allowing much room for exploration.

rachmii
While you can explore more in Starfox Adventures more so than Pokemon Colosseum, there are a lot of new areas in the game than you would normally see in the main Pokemon games. The game has Pokemon from Johto and Hoenn, but the game is based in a new region called Orre, which isn’t seen anywhere else and is completely new and unique for the game, especially when the game first came out. And yes, the story is linear, but so are the main Pokemon game for the most part.

krismii
The main Pokemon games let you explore more, though, and set your own pace. I think Starfox has a stronger story as well, with the worlds and creatures showing off the GameCube’s graphics better than Pokemon Colosseum. Starfox himself is a fun protagonist, being the type of hero that wants to protect the world but rolls his eyes as he does so. Tricky, the little dinosaur prince, was a cute sidekick as well, even if he did get annoying at times.

Rachel Mii Double Jump
Well, that’s fair. I’ll admit the protagonist in Pokemon Colosseum is nothing special. Still, you get Espeon and Umbreon as your Pokemon partners right off the bat, which is pretty great. The Eevee-evolutions have always been a fan favorite.

krismii
I will concede that Espeon and Umbreon — and the fact that the battles were all double battles, which is my favorite battle style — being your starters were awesome. I did find the story of Colosseum to be underwhelming, but I find myself a little jaded with the story lines of Pokemon games nowadays anyway. Starfox Adventures was an adventure and gave us some interesting new characters and a new way to interact with Fox McCloud. Granted, we never played the original Starfox games until the SNES Classic, and we weren’t too interested in them, so that may not count as much.

Rachel Mii Double Jump
I’ll admit, Starfox Adventures is a great game. The story was fun and the characters were great to play. I may go with Pokemon Colosseum mostly because Pokemon is my favorite as well. I guess we’ll just have to let everyone else decide.

Which side are you on? Let us know in the comments below!

Connect with us:
Twitter | Instagram | Tumblr | Twitch

Harvest Moon Vs. Animal Crossing [Debate]

Debate: Harvest Moon Vs Animal Crossing | Nintendo | Video Games | Gaming | DoublexJump.com

krismii
Harvest Moon and Animal Crossing are both wonderful franchises that we find relaxing with life simulation-like goals to improve our towns, relationships with others, and our protagonist’s life in general. Harvest Moon is my preferred franchise. While the main point is to work hard and improve a farm from a sad, desolate piece of land, you set your own other goals and live as you like.

rachmii
Meanwhile, I’m a bigger fan of Animal Crossing. While you don’t have a farm to take care of, you can work on your house. Decorating it, expanding upon it, and even bettering the shops and museum in your village. Plus, you meet a plethora of animal characters, building relationships with them, and overall living life.

krismii
I feel as if the main difference between the franchises is that Animal Crossing focuses more on the house while Harvest Moon focuses on the farm. Bettering your farm allows you to raise whatever crops and adorable animals you want, selling the produce to earn money to invest further into your farm and the main village itself. Bettering your house in Animal Crossing allows you to… pay back your debts to a raccoon.

rachmii
Bettering your house allows you to become an interior designer, duh. While the farming is cool and all, I like being able to collect various styles of furniture, objects, and other collectible items to fill my home with. I can mail items to villagers in my town and they can send me items back. It’s a win-win. Plus, there are new items in the shops every day and there are bugs and fish to collect to sell and put into a museum.

krismii
Hey, plenty of the Harvest Moon games allow you to better your house as well. It’s usually a requirement, actually, to build a bigger house if you want to get married and have children. Some games have the ability to change the wallpaper and flooring, to decorate your house as you see fit. It’s limited, of course, but when you’re busy getting rich off your farm, it’s something that takes a backseat. If you like collecting, try finding every item you can forage, growing every crop you can, and completing the little produce checklist.

Rachel Mii Double Jump
In Animal Crossing, I can get rich easily off of fishing. I can collect fish, bugs, paintings, and so much more. I get my fill, sure enough. And yeah, you can marry and have children in Harvest Moon, but it’s pretty slim pickings. While you don’t get married in Animal Crossing, there are over 300 villagers to meet, become friends, and collect their pictures. Trying to meet all the villagers and getting them all to move in your town adds a lot of replayability.

krismii
Don’t you have to kick out villagers from your town in order to get new ones to move in? What kind of neighbor are you to do that? Besides, over 300 villagers would be annoying to keep up with. The Harvest Moon games have fun casts to grow relationships with. If you want replayability, try shaping your farm differently during each play through. Harvest Moon games allow you to pass time more quickly than Animal Crossing as well. If you want to go to the next day in Harvest Moon, you just save and sleep in your bed. Animal Crossing makes you a slave to its real-time mechanics, especially when it comes to the shops.

Rachel Mii Double Jump
While some people kick their villagers out, I wait until the villagers move out on their own. And yes, the real-time can get a bit annoying, but most people just change the clock on the handheld or console. Plus, in New Leaf, they added ordinances where you can make your town an early bird or night owl allowing the shops and villagers to wake up and go to sleep either earlier or later, respectively. This was great for me since I typically play in the evening and was able to keep the shops open until well after I actually go to bed in real life. But I guess we’ll let everyone else decide.

Which side are you on? Let us know in the comments below!

Connect with us:
Twitter | Instagram | Tumblr