Debate: The Sims 3 vs. The Sims 4

Debate | The Sims | Sims | Sims 3 | Sims 4 | Video Games | Gaming | PC Games | Doublexjump.com

krismii
The Sims franchise has been around since [year], and has yet to waver in popularity despite the prices for the base games, expansion packs, and stuff packs. We started with Sims 2 and there was no doubt when the Sims 3 and then the Sims 4 came out that we wouldn’t get them as well. While Sims 2 was a great introduction for us both, our opinions differ a bit when it comes to Sims 3 and Sims 4. I greatly enjoy the Sims 4, but I will admit that I miss the Sims 3.

rachmii
The Sims 2 was always my favorite version out of the four games, even though I only had a little experience with The Sims 1. When The Sims 3 came out, I skipped it over entirely. While Kris played The Sims 3 I stuck with The Sims 2 because there was something about The Sims 3 that I didn’t care for. Now that The Sims 4 is out, I’ve left The Sims 2 behind.

krismii
To me, the Sims 3 had so much more customization available for your sims themselves. More looks for your avatar and more room for personality traits rather than only having 3 repetitive traits for your Sims 4. I didn’t understand why the Sims 4, with its emphasis on personality for the sims, axed a plethora of traits for the sims when it came to creating them.

rachmii
While I agree with you in some sense that I wish The Sims 4 was able to have more traits, there are cheat codes out there (I’m assuming) that allow you to have more than the allotted traits. I believe they made up for the traits through the emotions. Your sims in The Sims 4 have more personality not through the traits, but through the emotions. I find the emotions fun and challenging all at once.

krismii
Yes, I’ve used those cheat codes many times, haha! It just kind of proves that the Sims 4 is not up to par for my sims. To me, the emotions are a little too predictable and, at times, annoying. They’re not as varied as I would like them to be. I also think the Sims 4 did not do as well with the neighborhoods. The Sims 3 had an open world and allowed you to edit the neighborhoods as you saw fit. The Sims 4 is extremely limited with neighborhood space, not even allowing extra spots for more houses should you wish to add to the neighborhoods.

Rachel Mii Double Jump
I didn’t find the emotions annoying at all. I found it added more depth to their personalities even if they were a little predictable. As for the houses and neighborhoods… I actually have no counter for that. I agree with you on that. The only way to get more space is to buy the expansion packs. With that said, I didn’t like the neighborhood set-up in The Sims 3 where it was one big world, if I remember correctly. If you weren’t playing as a specific family, they still grew and moved on with their lives which I didn’t care for.

krismii
The Sims 4 did much better when it came to building and constructing houses, but the limited space hurts it. The Sims 3 did have an option to prevent other families from growing up, though. They did what they needed to stay alive, so to speak, but you could have paused the aging system, if I remember correctly. That way, you could be playing multiple households without losing progress on the family. The Sims 3 having each neighborhood be one big world gave the game beautiful graphics. I much prefer the look of the Sims 3 over the look of the Sims 4. The Sims 4 doesn’t look bad, of course, but the Sims 3 looked better to me.

Rachel Mii Double Jump
You can pause the aging system in The Sims 4 as well. And yes, building houses in The Sims 4 is much better than The Sims 3 (or any of the other games for that matter). I personally think The Sims 4 looks better than The Sims 3 with some updated graphics. Though… to be honest, I don’t remember the looks of The Sims 3 all that much. I guess we’ll let everyone else decide which game is the better one.

Which side are you on? If you liked this post, please share it around!

Connect with us:
Twitter | Instagram | Tumblr | Twitch

Advertisements

Debate: D&D’s Ranger vs Sorcerer

Debate: Ranger Vs Sorcerer | Dungeons and Dragons | Gaming | DoublexJump.com

krismii
Considering how much we’ve been enjoying our D&D campaign, we decided that this month’s debate will pit our characters’ classes against one another. We’re still fairly new to D&D and this is obviously just our personal opinions, but today I’m trying to convince Rachel that she should give the Ranger class a try instead of sticking to her magic class of Sorcerer. I mean, for one thing, Rangers can have animal companions when they level up. How cool is that?

rachmii
While it’s true a ranger has the ability to tame animals as companions, sorcerers can have the skill to be proficient in intimidation as well as persuasion. Sorcerers don’t need an animal to do the lip-curling for them. Speaking of skills, sorcerers can also be deceptive and have more insight than the rest of their party members allowing them to be more sly and also have more knowledge than everyone else at times.

krismii
I can counter the skills that lean towards Sorcerers with the skills that benefit Rangers more — dexterity and wisdom are the more popular abilities, and skills such as stealth, survival, and persuasion, as well. Granted, all of those skills and abilities are dependent on how one builds their character, so these can be moot points. Something that I really like about Rangers is their Fighting Style that they gain at 2nd level. Gaining a specialty when it comes to fighting is fantastic, be it giving bonuses to hit points such as Archery or attack like with Dueling.

rachmii
Okay, but hear me out… Magic. Sorcerers have magic so not only can they fight with regular weapons, but they have an arsenal at their fingertips – or staff, or whatever they use for magic. If we’re comparing levels, Sorcerers gain a lot at their second level as well such as flexible casting and sorcery points allowing them to use even more magic.

krismii
To go with magic, Rangers can also learn a decent arsenal of spells. Not as much as Sorcerers, no, but Rangers can be magically inclined. Their spells can be more nature-focused, helping out with the environment the party finds them in or dissuading creatures from attacking them. Even if Rangers couldn’t use any magic, they tend to have more strength to back up their regular attacks. Magic can’t solve every problem, but an arrow can cause a decent amount of damage in most situations.

Rachel Mii Double Jump
Magic can help with a lot of situations depending on the spells you know. Sure, rangers are typically stronger when it comes to physical attacks, but that also depends on your dice roll when you create and level up your character. Speaking of magic, it comes from a dragon bloodline. I’m part dragon, so there.

krismii
That’s your best shot? Admittedly, being part dragon is pretty cool, and it was honestly one of the backgrounds I was thinking of when we first created our characters. Yet, dragons can easily be the Ranger’s favored enemy, allowing the Ranger more knowledge against those with dragon blood. As a Ranger also grows in level, so does her attacks and speed. There will be times when Rangers gain extra attacks and roll bonuses to ensure that their hits will be true.

Rachel Mii Double Jump
I’m ignoring you. Being part dragon with magic is cool. Therefore, sorcerers beat rangers. The end.

Which side are you on? If you liked this post, please share it around!

Connect with us:
Twitter | Instagram | Tumblr | Twitch

Debate: Ocarina Of Time Vs. Majora’s Mask

Debate Ocarina of Time Vs Majora's Mask | The Legend of Zelda | Gaming | Video Games | Nintendo | DoublexJump.com

krismii
Ocarina of Time and Majora’s Mask, both originally for the Nintendo 64, are arguably a couple of the most popular Legend of Zelda titles. They may not be everyone’s favorites, but no one can deny the impact both have made in the world of video games today. Speaking of them not being everyone’s favorites, Majora’s Mask is most definitely not mine. Out of the N64 titles, I much prefer Ocarina of Time over its sequel.

rachmii
Both of these games have their pros and cons, yes. They are similar but very much different. I’ll be honest, when I was younger, I thought they were basically the same game. Why? I don’t know. I was a dumb child. Regardless, growing up watching Kris play these games allowed me to fall in love with both of them. I enjoy both adult Link and child Link. I like the plots of both games. However, if I had to choose which was better over the other, I think I’d have to go with Majora’s Mask.

krismii
You weren’t dumb, they do share the same engine and character models. In fact, Majora’s Mask relies on that for its story. I think that was one reason as to why I was never fond of the game when we were younger. To me, it wasn’t as original as Ocarina of Time. Ocarina was so successful that Nintendo wanted another quick Legend of Zelda game to emulate the success. With that said, I definitely prefer Ocarina’s story over Majora’s Mask. Ocarina of Time had this original, exciting adventure in order to save the world. The dungeons were unique as you gather items and allies, and the puzzles both in and out of the dungeons — and through time — were great to figure out.

Rachel Mii Double Jump
You say you enjoyed the puzzles both in and out of the dungeons “and through time” but Majora’s Mask is one huge puzzle through time. It’s a race against the clock and, while it’s stressful, it gives you various routes to play through as you relive the same three days over and over. Given the various theories of the game – is Link dead? Is he in limbo? – the idea of going back in time for the same three days adds a lot of depth to the game, despite the same things happening over again.

krismii
See, the time constraints of Majora’s Mask were not fun to me at all. Puzzle-wise, I was speaking more of how I enjoyed seeing the effects of things I’ve done as past Link in Ocarina of Time in the future. The windmill, the Spirit Temple… Being able to see the effects of Link’s help — or the effects of him not being there to help — was fascinating to me as a story mechanic. It also allowed me to see the results of everything Link has done rather than be erased from time over and over again in Majora’s Mask. It felt like my actions in Ocarina of Time mattered much more than anything I did in Majora’s Mask. To me, Ocarina had a better world to explore as well, with more unique characters to get to know and watch grow between the seven-year time gap.

Rachel Mii Double Jump
Okay, that’s fair. However, I’ll argue that you can’t see how your actions affect things because in the future, if you don’t “win,” the world is gone. As for the characters, I find the lot in Majora’s Mask to be quite unique. Each of them has their own story that they share with you as you collect their masks. They’re giving you part of their soul as they pass on to another life. They’ve all had hard times. They’re all grieving for something in their own ways. Link takes those stories, those lives, in his hands and becomes one with them in an attempt to save the world and to maybe, possibly, save those characters by allowing them to rest in peace.

krismii
Going off on your argument, the world would literally be gone in Majora’s Mask via a giant moon with a creepy face. Not only that, due to always turning back time and starting over, there’s always those certain characters that you may save in one timeline but will still meet a terrible fate once you turn back the clock. To continue flipping your reasoning, it’s similar with the Sages in Ocarina of Time. They each give up their previous lives for the greater good, sharing their strengths and power with Link as they all band together to save their world. They abandon who they were to become who they were meant to be, whether they like it or not, for the greater good. Aside from these more philosophical reasons, I just also greatly enjoyed the dungeons and exploration of Hyrule more in Ocarina than Majora’s. Majora’s Mask had you rushing, always worried about the clock, while Ocarina granted you more time to figure out secrets.

rachmii
That’s all well and good. And honestly, I absolutely love both games. It’s really hard to pick which one is “better.” As I said earlier, they both have their pros and cons but are completely unique in their own way. I’ll be curious to see which side our readers are on.

Which side are you on? 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

King Boom Boo Vs. King Boo [Debate]

Debate: King Boom Boo vs King Boo | Video Games | Gaming | Luigi's Mansion | Sonic Adventure 2 Battle | DoublexJump.com

krismii
Alright, we got a doozy for you guys this month! Being October and the month of ghosts, it was logical enough to stick King Boo in the debate, especially since he’s one of Rachel’s favorite characters in the Super Mario universe. The other game ghost we’re pitting against King Boo is King Boom Boo from Sonic Adventure 2 Battle. It’s a silly choice, but the game is one of my guilty pleasures, so we’re going with it.

rachmii
It was a choice made from a joking remark from Kris and I totally went along with it, much to her dismay. Because King Boom Boo was her idea, I’m taking the side of King Boo and she’s on the side of King Boom Boo. Kris, go ahead and start the debate!

krismii
King Boom Boo is one of the boss battles from a Knuckles level and he is one of the most random bosses in the game. From a game that is already ridiculous in terms of gameplay and animation, King Boom Boo fit right in. I remember his appearance made me laugh, with the rainbow-colored tongue and speaking only in babble. I couldn’t blame him for trying to kick Knuckles out. Knuckles, after all, was tearing up the pyramid where King Boom Boo made his home while looking for some of Eggman’s keys.

rachmii
His name itself is kind of ridiculous, to be honest. All in all, I think King Boo from Luigi’s Mansion has a better reason for being mean. He was practically locked away and wanted his freedom… and also to take over everything, but oh well.

krismii
…Dude, he was a ghost, couldn’t he just go off and do whatever he wanted? All King Boom Boo wanted was his own place. King Boom Boo was also enough of a, erm, ghost to try to defeat Knuckles on his own. King Boo had to impersonate and spook poor Luigi as Bowser during their fight. King Boom Boo also had a legitimate weakness to sunlight, making you race around the ring to catch up to him and puzzle out the sunroof to make him hide in terror. King Boo gets bested by a vacuum.

Rachel Mii Double Jump
King Boo had added protection in the Bowser suit, which is more defense than what King Boom Boo thought he had. Also, King Boo just has a really cool laugh and he has a jeweled crown. Not to mention, he has a lot of Boos backing him up. He has a whole army.

krismii
King Boom Boo has his own army as well. There were ghosts all over the place in the pyramid level, as well as one really stupid minion during the boss fight. Actually, if it wasn’t for that minion holding the trigger for the sunroof windows in the fight, King Boom Boo would have bested Knuckles because, you know, he’s an actual threat with pyrotechnic abilities instead of a little ghost acting as a puppeteer. King Boom Boo didn’t need an army to protect his home and little minions.

Rachel Mii Double Jump
Okay, well all I really need to say is that King Boo is much better than King Boom Boo. He’s more well known. This is the weirdest debate we’ve ever done, so I’m just going to end it and say I win.

Whose side are you on? 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

Debate: Cool, Cool Mountain Vs. Big Boo’s Haunt

Debate: Cool, Cool Mountain Vs. Big Boo's Haunt | Super Mario 64 Levels | Video Games | Gaming | Nintendo | DoublexJump.com

krismii
It’s been a little while since our last debate, and this topic came about when we were discussing our favorite levels from the classic Super Mario 64. We’re pitting our favorite levels against each other, with Rachel voting for Big Boo’s Haunt and me championing Cool, Cool Mountain.

rachmii
We both have our likes and dislikes when it comes to certain levels in Super Mario 64, but most of the levels are pretty well done. The game, as a whole, is a lot of fun. Though there are definitely some levels that are better than others.

krismii
Cool, Cool Mountain is one of my favorites, with the aesthetic being one of the reasons. I’ve always enjoyed ice levels, finding them to be pretty — you all are welcome for me restraining myself from making a “cool” pun — usually with the challenge of having your character slipping around everywhere. The level is bright with fun touches, like pine trees, ice slides, and snowmen.

rachmii
Cool, Cool Mountain is aesthetically pleasing, I’ll admit. Though I could say the same for Big Boo’s Haunt. Being a haunted house, it’s dark and mysterious and has creepy music to boot. The ghosts, during certain stars, will try to spook you throughout to get you to go away. It’s charming in its own right and there are puzzles within the level as well. You can’t get certain stars without getting the first few either.

krismii
While Big Boo’s Haunts needs to be dark for the theme, I suppose, I definitely prefer the brighter snow of Cool, Cool Mountain. The stars are mostly varied in the snow level — from ice slides to finding lost penguins to finding the snowman’s head to the wall jump challenge — while I feel the majority of Big Boo’s Haunts stars involve punching ghosts. Which, being ghosts, shouldn’t be a thing.

Rachel Mii Double Jump
The stars in Big Boo’s Haunt are repetitive, I agree. However, the level itself is a puzzle. You need to get a certain star to make the stairs appear in order to get up to the second floor. You need to use the vanishing cap a few times. There’s the bookcase that you need to hit the books in a certain order and more. There’s a lot to explore in the level too. While not all of it is used, you can go to the back of the mansion and just see how big and worldly it is.

krismii
Alright, so Big Boo’s Haunt is more like one giant puzzle, with some stars piggybacking off of others, which is interesting in itself. Cool, Cool Mountain, though, is one big playground, its world just as big — if not bigger — than Big Boo’s Haunt. Cool, Cool Mountain’s overworld, if you will, is more fun to explore while Big Boo’s Haunt just has the exterior of the mansion. Cool, Cool Mountain’s only subworld is the giant ice slide, but it ties in with the rest of the exterior very well, being a natural tether between the top of the mountain and the base with the penguins.

Rachel Mii Double Jump
True, true, but it’s also really easy to slip or dive off the edge and lose a life. Then you have to start all over. Big Boo’s Haunt has various areas – outside, the basement, the house itself, and the roof – and there’s no way of falling off the level… of course, unless you accidentally swan dive off the roof. Then Mario would be a pancake.

krismii
…Can Mario die from falling off the roof of Big Boo’s Haunt? I don’t think I’ve ever thought of that. With that said, that’s one of the challenges of Cool, Cool Mountain and goes right along with the ice and snow. Yes, there’s a danger to falling off of the edge, but it makes you play that much more carefully — or recklessly, whatever fits your style — in order to beat the world. The worst Big Boo’s Haunt has is that a ghost runs into you, but they tend to give you plenty of coins for your health in return to you punching them.

Rachel Mii Double Jump
I have no idea if Mario can die from falling off the roof, but he can lose quite a bit of health if he falls from high spaces. I don’t think it’s bad that the ghosts give you lots of coins. In fact, I think they were foreshadowing Luigi’s Mansion and I was able to live in those glory days of a beaten, run-down mansion all to myself… plus ghosts. Ghosts always win. End of debate.

Who’s side are you on? 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

Pokemon Johto Region Vs. Kalos Region [Debate]

Debate Johto Vs Kalos | Pokemon | Pokemon Regions | Gaming Debates | Video Games | Gaming | Nintendo | DoublexJump.com

krismii
This month’s debate we’re putting a couple of our favorite Pokemon regions head to head. It’s Johto versus Kalos, with me on the side of the second generation and Rachel trying to debate that the sixth generation is better than it.

rachmii
Ironically, I began my Pokemon journey in Johto since I was super younger when Kanto came out. Still, Kalos is the best region in my opinion. So far, at least. I completed Pokemon X in two days after getting the game and I still go back to it to collect more Pokemon and shiny hunt to this day.

krismii
Kalos was a great region, but Johto incorporated many mechanics that are still seen in the core series of games. The Johto games brought the day and night cycle, making it strategic when it came to catching every Pokemon. With Crystal, Johto also began giving Pokemon animated sprites and gave trainers the choice between a male and a female avatar.

rachmii
Kalos introduced some new mechanics as well. While the customization lacks a bit, you can still customize what you want your character to look like and you can change your hairstyle and color throughout the game. They added roller skates in addition to the bike and, best of all, Pokemon Amie. Now we can pet, feed, and play with our Pokemon. Not only is this adorable, but it pays off in battle. Depending on your friendship level, Pokemon will dodge attacks more often and even shake off status conditions like poison.

krismii
Pokemon Amie is a more advanced version of another mechanic that was introduced in the second generation. Friendship was first measured and used for Pokemon evolutions in the Johto region. Breeding was also introduced into the Pokemon games thanks to the Johto generation, giving competitors another way to raise the perfect Pokemon for battles as well as hatching baby Pokemon that otherwise wouldn’t be found in the wild.

Rachel Mii Double Jump
Friendship became a thing, yes, but all you could do to bring it up was to battle and not let them faint. Pokemon Amie is way better. Also, there are Fairy-type Pokemon now. A new type was introduced and used as a gym battle, which was cool.

krismii
Other ways to bring up the friendship was to spend time with the Pokemon, letting them be in your party, as well as certain items. Speaking of items, held items were first introduced into the Pokemon core games as well, bringing on another depth of strategy that became a staple in the games. Johto brought in two new types of Pokemon, Dark and Steel, both of which have been showcased with Elite Four and Gym Leaders specializing in their types. Aside from the new mechanics, I believe the Johto region games had a better plot than the Kalos games. Bringing back Team Rocket from the first generation, playing off of the time lapse between Kanto and Johto, was a great move. With that, the Johto games held onto that lore that a kid from Pallet Town originally thwarted Team Rocket, and gives players the chance to go through Kanto again until they face the most powerful trainer atop Mt. Silver.

Rachel Mii Double Jump
I think it’s safe to say there are a lot of similarities and differences between the two regions. Kalos came out years after Johto, so of course, the Johto region will introduce new things. Kalos has improved upon them. We’ll just have to see what everyone else says.

Which side are you on? 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

Gaming Debate Woes

Gaming Debate Woes | Video Games | Blogging | Gaming | Gamers | DoublexJump.com

krismii
As you may have noticed, Rachel and I occasionally do debates. We try to aim for at least one a month and even had a fantastic brainstorming session to figure out potential topics. The only downside to these debates? Rachel and I tend to have very similar tastes when it comes to video games.

rachmii
Yes, we have debate topics for at least the rest of 2019. However, it’s been hard to choose topics and to even write the debates because we agree on most things. Sorry to burst your bubble, but a lot of our debates have been us agreeing on the same thing but one of us just playing devil’s advocate.

krismii
On the plus side to playing devil’s advocate, writing for the other side is great practice! There haven’t been too many debate topics where we actually took different sides, where there? I think physical versus digital games and, of course, Harvest Moon versus Animal Crossing, was one of the few.

rachmii
There are some obvious debates where our opinions were different, but most of them not so much. We’re just too similar. Which isn’t necessarily a bad thing and you’re right, playing devil’s advocate can be fun. Still, we’re on the hunt for some new debate topics.

krismii
It’s not a bad thing at all, especially when we consider how often we play video games together. It’s great that we have so much in common so we don’t argue over what games to play often. In any case, it’d be great if we could get some topics where we actually had solid, opposite opinions on.

Rachel Mii Double Jump
I think it’s funny, actually. I think the only time we really have differences is some indie games that we’ve gotten review copies for and have played. If you’re not too into a game, you’re just done whereas I like to go just a little bit farther.

krismii
In those cases, while I do my best to take the time to get used to a new game, but if I’m not into it, I’d rather spend my time playing a game I enjoy. So many games, so little time! Other than that, though, there still aren’t too many differences between us, but it’d be great to actually have more debate topics and see where we fall on the subjects.

Rachel Mii Double Jump
So, with all that said, if you have any debate topics for us, please feel free to drop them in the comments below. We’re constantly thinking of new debates and challenges for each other, so we’re definitely interested to see what you guys think.

Do you have any debate topic ideas for us? 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

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

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