Bitmob.com

I recently abandoned a financially stable life to move across the country from the east coast to the bay area to pursue work in this field. I am broke, wonder how in the hell I will make things work (much less even dream of paying off college loans), and the general cloud of "this industry's too competitive, you'll never actually get in" doubts lingers over me. But here I am, working at GameStop and doing freelance for GameRevolution. It's not as much money as I need, but it's a big step, and the only way someone like me can get into the business is to push through the hardships - and I do not expect all fun and games, to be sure - because I love games as a medium and the culture/community/industry too damned much to not be persistent.

Sorry about your losses and good luck with whatever you're pursuing next. Thanks for the encouragement to those of us who have yet to taste the murky waters of "professional gaming industry." I envision it much like coffee - an acquired taste, one that I will need to take with lots of cream and sugar, but will be my fuel to wake up in the morning."

LITTLE bit irked by the last snipe at the end. "Big boy" pants? I play any level in Smash with the items on, and I do so proudly. It's still my own fault when I lose. To me, items and level design are part of what gives Smash some of its optional depth. It's that optional complexity that is something most fighters don't have.

You can view items/level design as a "cheap" element just for thrills and fun (which is most certainly IS), or you can look at them as another challenge to overcome in being a better player. To me, the best players at Smash know the mechanics, have the reflexes, and can overcome obstacles when the odds are against them AND take advantage when opportunity smiles on them. There ARE some items that can certainly be cheap, but skilled players will still counter them despite the stacked odds. I guess I enjoy the challenge.

Of course, this is all a matter of opinion, I'm just illustrating that items and actual level design don't dumb the game down, they add options. And it's those OPTIONS - letting everyone play the way they want - that is part of why I love Smash so much. No other fighter I know has near as many different ways to play.

I play SSBB with friends (I'd love to play it with more serious players but the online is sorely lacking and up until next month I'll have been stuck in the middle of nowhere), and I play SSF4 and MvC3 online for casual competition.

That said, NEITHER of the latter have adequate tutorials. Do you know what the fighting game community's excuse seems to be for a lack of tutorial?

"Anyone who actually CARES will know to look up our online in-depth strategy guides to learn the game. Oh, wait, they already know how to play."

It's a serious problem, and it's that elitist attitude and barrier to entry that is severely holding fighters back from the level of popularity and casual fun they used to have."

DKCR's difficulty was, for me, just right. It was clearly designed as a game for those of us who have been RAISED on platformers, as I have, and YES, it can be just as hard, if not harder, than the old DKC games. Frustratingly so? Only when you're trying to do a Time Trial or playing in Mirror Mode (the higher difficulty level).

I accumulated 99 lives halfway through the game - without purchasing any. So maybe I'm abnormally good at platformers? I concede to that squid level - that and a FEW other cases are definitely ones where you don't see them coming - IF you are rushing through the level. If you take that level slow and pay attention, the tentacles come out very quickly, sometimes before you can physically reach them, meaning you end up hitting them because you're moving fast and not being cautious. You don't need to see them coming in that level, you just need to exercise patience.

Also, DK letters are the only thing you don't keep when you die. Puzzle pieces and coins? You keep. As long as you finish the level in the same playthrough, you don't need to recollect Puzzle Pieces even if you die.

The difficulty feels "out of place?" When was the last time you picked up the SNES games? I played DKCR2 earlier this year. It's about the same as this game, difficulty-wise, as a whole. The later levels in DKCR are, admittedly, probably harder than the later levels in DKC2 but I completely disagree with the notion that DKC games were cake walks or some such. What makes DKC2 so brilliant is that its controls are simpel but EVERY LEVEL, more or less, engages you in a different way. The same reason why SMG and SMG2 are such elegant platformers. Simple controls, but a wealth of context to make use of them.

Again, not saying this game is easy. It isn't. It's harder than most I've played, but it's very streamlined and engaging, not mindlessly hard like playing God of War 2 on the highest difficulty.

People said New Super Mario Bros. Wii was "brutal" as well and it really isn't, it's about on-par with SMB: the Lost Levels if even that - at least NSMW doesn't have intenti9onalloy deceptive shortcuts that actually put you BACKWARD.

Seriously, I respect the opinion that the game might be too hard for many people - it probably is. But saying it's "out of place" I disagree with. Seriously. The old platformers of the 8 and 16-bit eras were more challenging than we remember. We just had all the time in the world to master them, as opposed to today where you play through a new game every WEEK if you want.

I love that you wrote this article but completely disagree with many of your feelings. The challenge was just right - for those of us who are platforming veterans. Newcomers will likely have some trouble, I admit."

I've been reviewing games for over 3 years and this issue still bugs me. I like assigning scores for games within my own reviews - to compare what me, myself, and I think of X game versus X game. I think on THAT level scores could be useful, but otherwise they're really just a cheap way for the reader to make a snap judgment on the general opinion of the review, and even then it's not accurate.

Since when did 7 become "meh" and 6 become "trash?" Last I checked, thsoe were both higher rather than lower...

Isn't a 1-10 scale pointless when it's really just a 6-10 scale?"