I pretty agree on the things you point out on this post.
Still, i do play a lot more ZaR and I played Roper once, not so long ago. I did waaay better in Roper than in ZaR but I think this is only due to the 3 seconds more that regular roper allows.
Otherwise I pretty agree that both conditions of these games make them quite equal on difficulty.
Actually, i think i playd like, maybe 10-20 ropers in my whole worm life. (As if I were a worm
)
And now, i think maybe a few hundreds ZaR since a year. So I can't compare. I actually like ZaR as much for the community as for the scheme, hard to say... I'm more used to ZaR so I prefer it. And I'm used to only zook so I prefer it. Wouldn't be bothered with 'nades or mines now. I like This simplicity of ZaR, wich is basically in the name of it
As much as in the "gameplay" of it
But I wouldn't defend what is better, easier, or whatever, i just don't give a shit..
I just prefer it
Why bothering about such things anyway ?
Still, i do play a lot more ZaR and I played Roper once, not so long ago. I did waaay better in Roper than in ZaR but I think this is only due to the 3 seconds more that regular roper allows.
Otherwise I pretty agree that both conditions of these games make them quite equal on difficulty.
Actually, i think i playd like, maybe 10-20 ropers in my whole worm life. (As if I were a worm
)And now, i think maybe a few hundreds ZaR since a year. So I can't compare. I actually like ZaR as much for the community as for the scheme, hard to say... I'm more used to ZaR so I prefer it. And I'm used to only zook so I prefer it. Wouldn't be bothered with 'nades or mines now. I like This simplicity of ZaR, wich is basically in the name of it
As much as in the "gameplay" of it
But I wouldn't defend what is better, easier, or whatever, i just don't give a shit..
I just prefer it
Why bothering about such things anyway ?
