Sorry man. SMB3 felt refined while SMW felt rushed and incomplete (loved both though; also, SMW2:Y'sI redeemed the series for me).
Reading a comment like this make me feel like some people just live in a different reality than others...
What do you feel was rushed, or incomplete, about SMW?
SMW is a much slicker game, overall, compared to SMB3, and it has the much-desired addition of save points.
There is great boss variety.
Interesting scenery/graphical variety.
Lots of alternate routes (that actually have to be sought out and discovered, rather than simply being given to you by the map in SMB3).
There is just a lot more stuff to do and discover than any other game in the series, up to that point.
SMW2 felt like a big step back. (plus that stupid-fucking-baby-crying-sound)
But regardless of one's feeling about SMW2, it strikes me as strange to view SMW as not being an improvement over SMB3.
SMB3 was near perfection. One of the main reasons it has greater appeal to me is the lack of a save feature. You can still use whistles to get to any world, and there are still some levels and worlds that feel less familiar because I haven't played through to those as frequently as the others. It keeps the game interesting and fresh. Most of the stages in Super Mario World feel way too familiar. I don't feel like I'm going to discover anything new when I play SMW.
SMW2:YI felt like platforming perfected. The challenge of the extra stages was extremely satisfying.
I think one of the biggest problems people tend to have, is that both SMB3 on the NES and SMW on the SNES are amazing games (and honestly, some of the best on each console respectively).
With that said, it's apples and oranges for me. There's more of a graphical/RAM/all around upgrade for SMW, but SMB3 pushes the NES almost to its max. SMB3 opened the door in early 1990, and SMW walked through it in late 1991.
Lack of a save feature pisses off many, but it really does speak as almost a "final hurrah" to "tough NES games". You were expected to make it through in one go. No mercy. There were, however, several "beach heads" that the player could make use of to ease the journey.
SMW is just massive all around. Everything is upgraded. It's SMB3 on steroids + more. I still love and play both regularly. I don't feel the need to choose exclusively between the two for any reason.
To be honest I played through that game as a kid and really didn't mind the crying sound. I thought 'well it's a baby, of course he's going to cry' I feel it fit well with how intense it felt when those darn flying guys were trying to grab him when you got close to 0.
I never played SMW2 until I was an adult, so that probably colors my view on the game, considerably.
(but the fact that ADULT developers thought that sound was OK still blows my mind)
A crying baby sound in a game is right up there with siren sounds in music that you hear on the radio.
SMB3 was near perfection. One of the main reasons it has greater appeal to me is the lack of a save feature. You can still use whistles to get to any world, and there are still some levels and worlds that feel less familiar because I haven't played through to those as frequently as the others. It keeps the game interesting and fresh. Most of the stages in Super Mario World feel way too familiar. I don't feel like I'm going to discover anything new when I play SMW.
I completely disagree. Mind you, I was a kid when I first played Super Mario World. Still, at the time, it was very exciting to discover the secret exit on a level after many failed attempts to locate it. Forest of Illusion was great in that it hid a lot of secret exits in unlikely places, made it feel very adventurous. It was cool seeing Valley of Bowser appear for the first time as well.
SMB3 is the gold standard of plain Mario fare, but SMW showed off the beginning of cinematics and added suspense. What I like most to this day is the story framing elements were kept to a minimum. Part of the excitement was revealing more and more levels. This was revived partially with New Super Mario Bros. Wii and Wii U, but what disappointed me was the overworld never transforms significantly like it did in SMW. There was never any clear indication an area on the map held a hidden level.
This is one where I agree with Guntz.
SMW has a sense of discovery and exploration that simply doesn't exist, in any form, in SMB3.
(sure there are some secrets within some levels, and you can find the whistles... but NOTHING on par with how SMW does it)
Also, as a simple matter of atmosphere, the music selection and color palette in SMB3 can come off as fairly "dead" compared to how vibrant things are in SMW.
Anyone remember Dragon Warrior and/or Final Fantasy for the NES?
Great games at the time, but today's RPGs are in many ways far far better (and I'm not talking about graphics and sound)! Honestly, I tried replaying Final Fantasy IV (originally II in the USA) a few years ago, and ugh. It was painful. Yeah, I have my fond memories, but I'll keep them as such.
Anyone remember Dragon Warrior and/or Final Fantasy for the NES?
Great games at the time, but today's RPGs are in many ways far far better (and I'm not talking about graphics and sound)! Honestly, I tried replaying Final Fantasy IV (originally II in the USA) a few years ago, and ugh. It was painful. Yeah, I have my fond memories, but I'll keep them as such.
It all depends on whether you're now completely slave to the more modern open world 3D RPGs or "traditional," old school turn based ones. I still enjoy both games you mentioned and would gladly play them over and over again versus anything modern with the Final Fantasy label slapped on it. Yeah, I would usually run around, goofing off in Skyrim or Fallout 3 before jumping back into Dragon Warrior or Final Fantasy, but that's moreso due to the amount of immersion and dedication those games require (to me, anyway, as if I leave off playing them for a week or two and come back I'll be forever trying to figure out what the heck I was doing) whereas I can easily hop in and out of the more modern titles and just refer to a handy in game menu of open quests and objectives should I need it.
I disagree with your statement that modern games are far far better. Modern games are different, and there are some which are legitimately better titles than older RPGs, but most of the old games still stand up well on their own as well as in comparison to more modern games. If you've gotten to the point where you moreso enjoy the "run and gun" line of modern RPGs, so be it, enjoy what you enjoy, but that doesn't somehow make the old games bad or worse than modern titles--they're just not your favorite flavor anymore.
Anyone remember Dragon Warrior and/or Final Fantasy for the NES?
Great games at the time, but today's RPGs are in many ways far far better (and I'm not talking about graphics and sound)! Honestly, I tried replaying Final Fantasy IV (originally II in the USA) a few years ago, and ugh. It was painful. Yeah, I have my fond memories, but I'll keep them as such.
It all depends on whether you're now completely slave to the more modern open world 3D RPGs or "traditional," old school turn based ones. I still enjoy both games you mentioned and would gladly play them over and over again versus anything modern with the Final Fantasy label slapped on it. Yeah, I would usually run around, goofing off in Skyrim or Fallout 3 before jumping back into Dragon Warrior or Final Fantasy, but that's moreso due to the amount of immersion and dedication those games require (to me, anyway, as if I leave off playing them for a week or two and come back I'll be forever trying to figure out what the heck I was doing) whereas I can easily hop in and out of the more modern titles and just refer to a handy in game menu of open quests and objectives should I need it.
I disagree with your statement that modern games are far far better. Modern games are different, and there are some which are legitimately better titles than older RPGs, but most of the old games still stand up well on their own as well as in comparison to more modern games. If you've gotten to the point where you moreso enjoy the "run and gun" line of modern RPGs, so be it, enjoy what you enjoy, but that doesn't somehow make the old games bad or worse than modern titles--they're just not your favorite flavor anymore.
I didn't actually say RPGs today are far far better, I said that they are far far better in some ways (makes a difference that
Sure, there were amazing RPGs back then (in fact, Ultima V, 1988, remains one of my favorite RPGs of all time). However, today you can find great indie RPGs that pay homage to classic RPGs (such as Pier Solar) or modern open world AAA RPGs such as Witcher III, or anything in between. As a long-time RPG fan I appreciate today's modern features such as in-game maps, non-random encounters, better dialogue/stories, quest logs, etc. Again, I tried playing FF IV a few years ago and couldn't stomach it. Now, I have to disagree with your statement "most of the old games still stand up well on their own". Nope. Some, yes, but most -not in my opinion, but to each their own of course.
I didn't actually say RPGs today are far far better, I said that they are far far better in some ways (makes a difference that
Sure, there were amazing RPGs back then (in fact, Ultima V, 1988, remains one of my favorite RPGs of all time). However, today you can find great indie RPGs that pay homage to classic RPGs (such as Pier Solar) or modern open world AAA RPGs such as Witcher III, or anything in between. As a long-time RPG fan I appreciate today's modern features such as in-game maps, non-random encounters, better dialogue/stories, quest logs, etc. Again, I tried playing FF IV a few years ago and couldn't stomach it. Now, I have to disagree with your statement "most of the old games still stand up well on their own". Nope. Some, yes, but most -not in my opinion, but to each their own of course.
I should have clarified, as I was thinking in my head of most of the commonly thought of RPGs from way back when and not all RPGs in general. Feel free to still disagree, but I still see the NES Dragon Warrior series, the NES/SNES Final Fantasies, Legend of Mana, Secret of Evermore, Chrono Trigger and heck, even some of the Game Boy stuff like Final Fantasy Legend as great, still fun to play games. If you want to broaden the horizon a bit (as you potentially did with Ultima V--you didn't specify if you played it on the NES or a computer), stuff like the AD&D Gold Box games (Pool of Radiance series, Krynn series, etc.), Wasteland, the Phantasie series, etc. all still stand up as great, fun to play games.
Yes, newer, more modern games have definitely introduced mechanics that are fantastic and make those games a lot of fun to play. But to me, that doesn't diminish the fun that I had (and still have, on occasion) with the older games that came before. I didn't like every title I came across, their gameplay, story, etc., but for those games I did play through and love, I still have fun with them, all the way through. In my mind, if it were just nostalgia, I would boot up the game, play for a few minutes and then put down the controller, unable to play further, probably akin to your experience with FFII/IV. So far, I've not had that experience with any of my old gaming haunts, even going all the way back to my Odyssey 2. I don't necessarily like all games for those older systems that I didn't experience back then, but I also don't dislike them for the older, more primitive experience that they provide--I've actually found lots of games that I didn't know about that I now enjoy playing and have a lot of fun with, despite their limitations.
Honestly, I tried replaying Final Fantasy IV (originally II in the USA) a few years ago, and ugh. It was painful.
You were crying, but it was not pain. It was the fact that Goblez telling you "Goodbye Bro" from the Moon touched you in an unexpected way, which you associate with pain, but it was not.
Is any dialog in FFIV (FFII us) good? Of course not. Several dialogs in the first six chapters of FF are empty and not worth to read, but still there was the will to tell a story, to make a thing the game designers had feelings about, to empathetically share a feeling with the player, and they were mocking and laughing at them selves with tons of self-irony in every chapter of the series (just think about the silliness of the chocobo, or in FFII the namingway guy, the scenes lost in translation unfortunately involving Cid and Edge, and so on...), and not a commercial product stereotyped story who cared to appeal the public in the most orthodox possible way, with big blades on males and big something else on females protagonists.
Today in Japan the Main Theme from FFII (us) is tough (?past tense of teach?) in schools to kids in music classes! Everyone recognize the silly 16x16px graphics of the black wizard. The original development team of FF at Square were just a bunch of genius put together from some strange alchemy somewhere in Japan, like the Beatles somewhere in Liverpool. It was their "last final fantasy", before quitting their job (and do something "serious" in their lives) of video game designer/developers, and that was the recipe which made them succeed, and make another fives.
Does Skyrym (whatever it is spelled) compare? No way.
Now, if you insist with FFII (us) being a pain to play, the only excuse it is that you are playing it wrong. Running away from combat IT IS an option. Once you have bought the best equipment at that stage of the game, what do you battle for? Run to the next boss already! Run run run. Explore, and run, trow away your money, who cares? If you really have trouble because under level (very unlikely) then gain few levels near the next boss, before facing it. And no, this is not counter intuitive, it is what good military strategy guys do in real life: battle the fight worth fighting, and avoid the fight not worth fighting. Sun Tzu also said so.
If you stop and fight every random battle that you triggered, well, then the game is utterly tedious and annoying (unless you really enjoy to bring your characters to absurd levels, and few players do); but in this case, I think, you missed to discover a very well implemented game mechanics (run away from battles) which was an option for the player in the game designers plans, and not a game design fault.
I can understand FFI being badly balanced in the beginning since really hard and level up enough is a bit a boring task to do in such phase, FFII having weirds mechanics, but FF III to VI (jp), were not annoying at all, and reasonably speaking perfectly balanced to don't be boring at all. If you like RPGs, and you like 2D games, I see no ways these games are not appealing.
All this being said, feel free to dislike FFII, no big deal, I won't care.
Just my 2 cents, hoping that my English is good enough to express myself.
Edit: ooops... I just realized that the post I was answering to is 11 days old.
I was going trough threads in the Gauntlet to find a conversation to follow, and this one was interesting, so I did not really realized that it was few days old already. Sorry about that.
Honestly, I tried replaying Final Fantasy IV (originally II in the USA) a few years ago, and ugh. It was painful.
You were crying, but it was not pain. It was the fact that Goblez telling you "Goodbye Bro" from the Moon touched you in an unexpected way, which you associate with pain, but it was not.
Is any dialog in FFIV (FFII us) good? Of course not. Several dialogs in the first six chapters of FF are empty and not worth to read, but still there was the will to tell a story, to make a thing the game designers had feelings about, to empathetically share a feeling with the player, and they were mocking and laughing at them selves with tons of self-irony in every chapter of the series (just think about the silliness of the chocobo, or in FFII the namingway guy, the scenes lost in translation unfortunately involving Cid and Edge, and so on...), and not a commercial product stereotyped story who cared to appeal the public in the most orthodox possible way, with big blades on males and big something else on females protagonists.
Today in Japan the Main Theme from FFII (us) is tough (?past tense of teach?) in schools to kids in music classes! Everyone recognize the silly 16x16px graphics of the black wizard. The original development team of FF at Square were just a bunch of genius put together from some strange alchemy somewhere in Japan, like the Beatles somewhere in Liverpool. It was their "last final fantasy", before quitting their job (and do something "serious" in their lives) of video game designer/developers, and that was the recipe which made them succeed, and make another fives.
Does Skyrym (whatever it is spelled) compare? No way.
Now, if you insist with FFII (us) being a pain to play, the only excuse it is that you are playing it wrong. Running away from combat IT IS an option. Once you have bought the best equipment at that stage of the game, what do you battle for? Run to the next boss already! Run run run. Explore, and run, trow away your money, who cares? If you really have trouble because under level (very unlikely) then gain few levels near the next boss, before facing it. And no, this is not counter intuitive, it is what good military strategy guys do in real life: battle the fight worth fighting, and avoid the fight not worth fighting. Sun Tzu also said so.
If you stop and fight every random battle that you triggered, well, then the game is utterly tedious and annoying (unless you really enjoy to bring your characters to absurd levels, and few players do); but in this case, I think, you missed to discover a very well implemented game mechanics (run away from battles) which was an option for the player in the game designers plans, and not a game design fault.
I can understand FFI being badly balanced in the beginning since really hard and level up enough is a bit a boring task to do in such phase, FFII having weirds mechanics, but FF III to VI (jp), were not annoying at all, and reasonably speaking perfectly balanced to don't be boring at all. If you like RPGs, and you like 2D games, I see no ways these games are not appealing.
All this being said, feel free to dislike FFII, no big deal, I won't care.
Just my 2 cents, hoping that my English is good enough to express myself.
Edit: ooops... I just realized that the post I was answering to is 11 days old.
I was going trough threads in the Gauntlet to find a conversation to follow, and this one was interesting, so I did not really realized that it was few days old already. Sorry about that.
No, no, really. I just don't think FF IV holds up well, even if it is a "classic" RPG. Everyone is entitled to his/her opinions. However, I did replay Dragon Quest IV, V, and VI on the DS a few years ago. I was amazed at how well those held up, especially DQ IV. Those games also had random encounters, but you could limit it, and it seemed far more random than in FF IV, which I think was something like every 3 seconds or so.
Does Skyrym (whatever it is spelled) compare? No way.
You're entitled to your hyperoblic opinions which are given without much context, background, nor argument (I take it by your comment you never played Skyrim). However, I'll pass on Final Fantasy II/IV and will keep it tucked away in my nostalgia box which says "do not open unless you find yourself thrown back in time, and hopefully your memory has been erased so you don't realize how badly this has aged"
SMW went wrong somewhere creatively. The setting is too Earth-like by Mario standards, it doesn't hold up to the love felt behind games like SMW2 and SMB3.
I got my first SNES as the Mario All-Stars and Mario World set (the seperate cartridges both in the box, not that having to send away for a request and the cost of shipping like in that classic commercial) and even then I was curious why they didn't include both the 8-bit and 16-bit versions. I guess they figured most of wanted the NES versions already had them and why they chose not to make the SNES backwards compatible...not only would it have added $50 to a system that was already questioned about its high $200 price tag (or around $340ish in today's money) but they figured most who wanted the backwards compatibility already had an NES so they did a "work around" of sorts by encouraging and showing how to have both systems together on the same TV.
Bottom line is, I like to have the best of both worlds!
No, no, really. I just don't think FF IV holds up well, even if it is a "classic" RPG. Everyone is entitled to his/her opinions. However, I did replay Dragon Quest IV, V, and VI on the DS a few years ago. I was amazed at how well those held up, especially DQ IV. Those games also had random encounters, but you could limit it, and it seemed far more random than in FF IV, which I think was something like every 3 seconds or so.
Does Skyrym (whatever it is spelled) compare? No way.
You're entitled to your hyperoblic opinions which are given without much context, background, nor argument (I take it by your comment you never played Skyrim). However, I'll pass on Final Fantasy II/IV and will keep it tucked away in my nostalgia box which says "do not open unless you find yourself thrown back in time, and hopefully your memory has been erased so you don't realize how badly this has aged"
Thanks for the reply.
Two things I really like about NA: you are entitled to have your opinion and no one gets angry about it, even if in disagreement; and that people honestly state what they think, without hypocrisy, and I think that an honest relaxed talk about a subject two sides disagree, it is way more cool than silly drama.
"You're entitled to your hyperoblic opinions"
Well spotted. My whole post was hyperbolic, of course, the same way you will be hyperbolic describing the taste of your favorite food, like someone stating, for instance: "are you kidding me? Pizza is the best invention ever!". To someone liking pizza, it does make sense, to someone else, it would sound so wrong to hear.
"I take it by your comment you never played Skyrim"
Kind of well spotted (I did not intensively played the game) but not entirely true. I tried it out (a friend proposed it to me when it was released) and it was unappealing to me. Very nice Celtic sounding epic music, of course, but still, from a purely artistic stand point, far far away from the SNES soundtracks of FFII us and FF III us. There are few very cute concepts, and lots of options; but, from such brief experience, overall it seems a washed up plastic looking stereotype of a fantasy game on a huge map you don't even really explore, and adding in the equation the little challenge of quick saves in every place you want, the overall annoying controls, and mechanics, and the lack of a truly engaging RPG element (Role Playing Game, it is not about leveling, but it is about caring about a character story in a fictional world), did not helped leaving a positive mark on my books. Also, generally I do prefer 2D graphics over 3D graphics in video games. And I dislike to have to use a mouse to play a video game. Probably my opinion here has little value, from the fact that, as I already stated, I tried the game an afternoon, but not intensively played the game any longer.
I played for a little longer Baldur's Gate (again, a friend borrowed it to me), and same thing, not appealing: infinite save points, little challenge, little involvement, weak predictable story, boring mechanics, mouse control, real time instead of turns, run away from a battle is a mess, you have to fight everything on screen... it seems like a munchkin D&D (pencil and paper) power player taking over the design of a video game (level 1 defeat the goblin, level 2 defeat the orc, level 3 defeat the troll, ...), with little NPC interaction and sentences repeated over and over to boredom (I'm going, I can but try, As you will, yes oh omnipresent authority, Heeelm, ....aaaarghhh!! enough already!!!). I quited after a dozen of screens or so. It did not leave a very positive mark on my books. Sorry.
"Those games also had random encounters, but you could limit it, and it seemed far more random than in FF IV, which I think was something like every 3 seconds or so."
This one was already covered. Random encounter (and boring battles) are tedious. Run away from useless battles. Really. Please do so. It was intended, it is advised even in the manual (disclaimer: I am not sure, but I remember so). If you fight every battle, then it can become utterly annoying, of course. Yet again, that's not the game design fault, if you play it missing the acknowledgment of the existence of a feature (I really doubt that this last sentence structure is correct English wise, but please be nice, it is not my first language).
"so you don't realize how badly this has aged"
I cannot disagree more, since they are in the few games that I still play with enthusiasm today.
Yet, I recognize that probably people do not look for the same elements when playing a RPG, or a video game in general.
I respect your opinion, but just can't say that I agree.
Skyrim huh. Played a lot of it but... I can't say I know what to make of games that in some respects take the sense of freedom too far.
They could reduce the urge to gather worthless loot, and encourage more responsible use of quick saves. Then have an option for enhanced quest descriptors giving you a suggestion what approaches to them are likely to be effective/enjoyable.
When you feel like you can do anything, go anywhere, it risks feeling unrewarding. Reminds me of why I've grown tired of cheat codes, Sim City and its ilk, create-a-player modes, etc over the years.
Baldur's Gate, now there, is a great RPG! Has it aged well? Not graphically, but in other ways yes. It was always always meant to be played in its entirety, a trilogy. Truthfully, the first game, is a bit on the boring side. Fairly predictable. However, Baldur's Gate II really takes off. The storyline becomes darker, more intense, more exciting, more meaningful. Having played through it, as well as FF IV of course, I would add that in terms of depth of storyline, there is no comparison. Baldur's Gate >> FF IV.
Disagree if you want, but you still get articles like this:
"Thirteen years after release, Baldur's Gate II is still one of the best role-playing games of all time. No joke. If you consider yourself an RPG fan, this is a game you have to play."
Baldur's Gate, now there, is a great RPG! Has it aged well? Not graphically, but in other ways yes. It was always always meant to be played in its entirety, a trilogy. Truthfully, the first game, is a bit on the boring side. Fairly predictable. However, Baldur's Gate II really takes off. The storyline becomes darker, more intense, more exciting, more meaningful. Having played through it, as well as FF IV of course, I would add that in terms of depth of storyline, there is no comparison. Baldur's Gate >> FF IV.
Disagree if you want, but you still get articles like this:
"Thirteen years after release, Baldur's Gate II is still one of the best role-playing games of all time. No joke. If you consider yourself an RPG fan, this is a game you have to play."
The beauty of opinions! Ask for 100, and you are lucky if you get 99 different and 1 I don't know.
I guessed you would say that you liked Baldur's Gate.
I played only the first Baldur's Gate, and for a while (like a dozen of screens, or a little more, up to when you meet your best party members and reach the carnival I think), then I quit playing and never felt like "what next?". And, believe me, the same way you dislike FF IV battle system, I genuinely dislike that chaotic pseudo real time spacebar mouse combo in battle. I'd rather play FF IV once more.
Even in those years, some of my friends (usually munchkin power player also when playing paper and pencil RPGs) would say exactly what you say (and insist to borrow the game once again to prove their point) or claim wonders about FF VII which I never find appealing; some others did prefer the 2D games from Square like me, or even in 3D polygon graphics on a Sony PS (later PS1, however I only had NES and SNES), they, like me, would prefer to play FF IX (a reboot from previous FF chapters, and Vivi!).
Obviously, there are different best RPG games for different people.
First thing to come to mind is I much prefer the Super Mario All-Stars versus the original trilogy on nes.
I really like All Stars too. It's hard for me to choose but I think the NES ones are easier to control.
For the longest time I would have agreed with you but I think that now I've become to accustomed to the SNES controls I find it to be the opposite! I've beat the first and third ones on the nes and would like to play through the second so I better get reanquianted with the original controls and lack of save features
Never understood the appeal of FF VII. I wonder if maybe it was just a bunch of kids that had never experienced FF IV and FF VI or other RPGs that decided FF VII was the greatest game ever made? Because frankly, I'd rather play SO many games rather than have to go through that painful game again. In fact, FF VII is the game that stopped my interest with anything Final Fantasy (except Tactics which is my favorite FF game of all time)! So, although I think FF IV hasn't aged well, it's overall just a much better game than VII in my opinion.
Never understood the appeal of FF VII. I wonder if maybe it was just a bunch of kids that had never experienced FF IV and FF VI or other RPGs that decided FF VII was the greatest game ever made? Because frankly, I'd rather play SO many games rather than have to go through that painful game again. In fact, FF VII is the game that stopped my interest with anything Final Fantasy (except Tactics which is my favorite FF game of all time)! So, although I think FF IV hasn't aged well, it's overall just a much better game than VII in my opinion.
Ah! Finally we agree on something video game related!
I hated the minigames in FFVII when it came out. Not I wish I could go back and play them without the rest of the game. I especially liked the submarine game. That was awesome.
Never understood the appeal of FF VII. I wonder if maybe it was just a bunch of kids that had never experienced FF IV and FF VI or other RPGs that decided FF VII was the greatest game ever made? Because frankly, I'd rather play SO many games rather than have to go through that painful game again. In fact, FF VII is the game that stopped my interest with anything Final Fantasy (except Tactics which is my favorite FF game of all time)! So, although I think FF IV hasn't aged well, it's overall just a much better game than VII in my opinion.
The only appeal of FF7, IMO, was the novelty of it when it was released, compared to what had come before.
That is, when it came out, it was one of the first RPGs to have extended cutscenes, and all sorts of crazy battle animations.
(before those concepts were played out and annoying)
Looking back, though, I completely agree that the game doesn't hold much lasting appeal.
Sorry man. SMB3 felt refined while SMW felt rushed and incomplete (loved both though; also, SMW2:Y'sI redeemed the series for me).
But regardless of one's feeling about SMW2, it strikes me as strange to view SMW as not being an improvement over SMB3.
SMW added little value from SMB3, imo. The addition of Yoshi and save points, but Mario 3 offered a game that was equally as diverse, if not moreso, than SMW in terms of level design, enemies, etc. Furthermore, by the time SMW came around, it was all old hat, a rehash. So I personally feel SMW wasn't such a large improvement at all, and the point could further be argued considering talented folks in Taiwan had managed to basically do a backport of SMW onto the NES, and it turned out pretty decent. If it was such a large improvement and not just a minor thing, a task like this wouldn't have been nearly as feasible. It is just a SMB3 sequel, at best.
A few years back I used to bring my GBC and b/w GB to school and let the children play on them, and they loved playing the games. They would always pass the machines around, and even prefer to play them over the smart phone games they had. I am not sure if it was due to novelty, or just because the games were more fun, and had more substance to them (I suspect the latter to be the case).
I do feel that sometimes the later games in a series are much better than originals, however; cases would be the Adventure Island series, for example. The second and third games in the series are a huge improvement from the first one, imo. I find the first to be barely playable, but love playing the two aforementioned sequels. The Ghouls n Ghosts series is another example. While I enjoy the NES version, its controls definitely feel rather stiff and a bit primitive compared to the SNES sequel. And the original Mario Kart I can't stand to play, yet love the rest of the series.
Sorry man. SMB3 felt refined while SMW felt rushed and incomplete (loved both though; also, SMW2:Y'sI redeemed the series for me).
But regardless of one's feeling about SMW2, it strikes me as strange to view SMW as not being an improvement over SMB3.
SMW added little value from SMB3, imo. The addition of Yoshi and save points, but Mario 3 offered a game that was equally as diverse, if not moreso, than SMW in terms of level design, enemies, etc. Furthermore, by the time SMW came around, it was all old hat, a rehash. So I personally feel SMW wasn't such a large improvement at all, and the point could further be argued considering talented folks in Taiwan had managed to basically do a backport of SMW onto the NES, and it turned out pretty decent. If it was such a large improvement and not just a minor thing, a task like this wouldn't have been nearly as feasible. It is just a SMB3 sequel, at best.
I completely disagree with pretty much everything you have to say in this paragraph.
1) SMW has a much larger diversity of level design, and introduces concepts like keys for secret exits, the switch blocks, ghost houses, Star Road, etc.
Mario 3 didn't even introduce the concept of themed worlds, since that was first done in SMB2.
The only thing of greater variety in SMB3 is the number of suits Mario can wear.
2) Being able to "demake" the game isn't really a mark of it not being a worthy upgrade/successor. It just means that certain graphical elements could be stripped back and simplified, and that there were workarounds for special mode useage on the SNES (i.e. removing things like stretched or rotating sprites -- which has to mean simplifying the boss levels)
There are plenty of "pirate" (in the IP sense) NES/famicom games that use MUCH LARGER memory spaces and more complex mappers than typical NES/famicom games.
So just because they managed to do a demake (not clear from your post what percentage of the game actually made the conversion) it says nothing about whether the feat would have been possible on EXISTING and legitimate tools available to NES/famicom developers of the actual time period.
(i.e. nobody in the period was making 2MB+ NES games like the FF7 demake, Legend of Link -- which uses both MMC5 AND 2MB of memory, etc)
I really just think it's an invalid comparison, overall, since there is quite a lot of technical comparison that you're leaving out or ignoring and simply accepting the demade game as "pretty decent" and saying that makes it not much better than SMB3.
A properly motivated studio could do THE SAME THING with almost any game on the SNES, if they were so inclined, with the real exception being a matter of reducing the play control to the NES controller limitations. (which for SMW already drops a lot of stuff you can do in-game)
SMB3 was a great game. But it is a total joke to try and claim that SMW isn't a significant upgrade.
Comments
Sorry man. SMB3 felt refined while SMW felt rushed and incomplete (loved both though; also, SMW2:Y'sI redeemed the series for me).
Reading a comment like this make me feel like some people just live in a different reality than others...
What do you feel was rushed, or incomplete, about SMW?
SMW is a much slicker game, overall, compared to SMB3, and it has the much-desired addition of save points.
There is great boss variety.
Interesting scenery/graphical variety.
Lots of alternate routes (that actually have to be sought out and discovered, rather than simply being given to you by the map in SMB3).
There is just a lot more stuff to do and discover than any other game in the series, up to that point.
SMW2 felt like a big step back. (plus that stupid-fucking-baby-crying-sound)
But regardless of one's feeling about SMW2, it strikes me as strange to view SMW as not being an improvement over SMB3.
SMB3 was near perfection. One of the main reasons it has greater appeal to me is the lack of a save feature. You can still use whistles to get to any world, and there are still some levels and worlds that feel less familiar because I haven't played through to those as frequently as the others. It keeps the game interesting and fresh. Most of the stages in Super Mario World feel way too familiar. I don't feel like I'm going to discover anything new when I play SMW.
SMW2:YI felt like platforming perfected. The challenge of the extra stages was extremely satisfying.
I think one of the biggest problems people tend to have, is that both SMB3 on the NES and SMW on the SNES are amazing games (and honestly, some of the best on each console respectively).
With that said, it's apples and oranges for me. There's more of a graphical/RAM/all around upgrade for SMW, but SMB3 pushes the NES almost to its max. SMB3 opened the door in early 1990, and SMW walked through it in late 1991.
Lack of a save feature pisses off many, but it really does speak as almost a "final hurrah" to "tough NES games". You were expected to make it through in one go. No mercy. There were, however, several "beach heads" that the player could make use of to ease the journey.
SMW is just massive all around. Everything is upgraded. It's SMB3 on steroids + more. I still love and play both regularly. I don't feel the need to choose exclusively between the two for any reason.
Now SMW2, that's a whole different thread IMHO.
Super Mario world over SMB3 in my opinion as well, SMB3 is great but like other said SMW is basically 3 on steroids.
SMW2 is a great game too, the baby sound just made me try harder not to get hit so it wouldn't annoy the crap out of me.
To be honest I played through that game as a kid and really didn't mind the crying sound. I thought 'well it's a baby, of course he's going to cry' I feel it fit well with how intense it felt when those darn flying guys were trying to grab him when you got close to 0.
I never played SMW2 until I was an adult, so that probably colors my view on the game, considerably.
(but the fact that ADULT developers thought that sound was OK still blows my mind)
A crying baby sound in a game is right up there with siren sounds in music that you hear on the radio.
SMB3 was near perfection. One of the main reasons it has greater appeal to me is the lack of a save feature. You can still use whistles to get to any world, and there are still some levels and worlds that feel less familiar because I haven't played through to those as frequently as the others. It keeps the game interesting and fresh. Most of the stages in Super Mario World feel way too familiar. I don't feel like I'm going to discover anything new when I play SMW.
I completely disagree. Mind you, I was a kid when I first played Super Mario World. Still, at the time, it was very exciting to discover the secret exit on a level after many failed attempts to locate it. Forest of Illusion was great in that it hid a lot of secret exits in unlikely places, made it feel very adventurous. It was cool seeing Valley of Bowser appear for the first time as well.
SMB3 is the gold standard of plain Mario fare, but SMW showed off the beginning of cinematics and added suspense. What I like most to this day is the story framing elements were kept to a minimum. Part of the excitement was revealing more and more levels. This was revived partially with New Super Mario Bros. Wii and Wii U, but what disappointed me was the overworld never transforms significantly like it did in SMW. There was never any clear indication an area on the map held a hidden level.
This is one where I agree with Guntz.
SMW has a sense of discovery and exploration that simply doesn't exist, in any form, in SMB3.
(sure there are some secrets within some levels, and you can find the whistles... but NOTHING on par with how SMW does it)
Also, as a simple matter of atmosphere, the music selection and color palette in SMB3 can come off as fairly "dead" compared to how vibrant things are in SMW.
Great games at the time, but today's RPGs are in many ways far far better (and I'm not talking about graphics and sound)! Honestly, I tried replaying Final Fantasy IV (originally II in the USA) a few years ago, and ugh. It was painful. Yeah, I have my fond memories, but I'll keep them as such.
Pokemon gold/silver over red and blue any day, I still love red/blue but, gold/silver basically blew them away in every aspect
Super Mario world over SMB3 in my opinion as well, SMB3 is great but like other said SMW is basically 3 on steroids.
SMW2 is a great game too, the baby sound just made me try harder not to get hit so it wouldn't annoy the crap out of me.
I definitely agree on Gold/Silver/Crystal.
Red and Blue are classic, but they're tough to play today.
Anyone remember Dragon Warrior and/or Final Fantasy for the NES?
Great games at the time, but today's RPGs are in many ways far far better (and I'm not talking about graphics and sound)! Honestly, I tried replaying Final Fantasy IV (originally II in the USA) a few years ago, and ugh. It was painful. Yeah, I have my fond memories, but I'll keep them as such.
It all depends on whether you're now completely slave to the more modern open world 3D RPGs or "traditional," old school turn based ones. I still enjoy both games you mentioned and would gladly play them over and over again versus anything modern with the Final Fantasy label slapped on it. Yeah, I would usually run around, goofing off in Skyrim or Fallout 3 before jumping back into Dragon Warrior or Final Fantasy, but that's moreso due to the amount of immersion and dedication those games require (to me, anyway, as if I leave off playing them for a week or two and come back I'll be forever trying to figure out what the heck I was doing) whereas I can easily hop in and out of the more modern titles and just refer to a handy in game menu of open quests and objectives should I need it.
I disagree with your statement that modern games are far far better. Modern games are different, and there are some which are legitimately better titles than older RPGs, but most of the old games still stand up well on their own as well as in comparison to more modern games. If you've gotten to the point where you moreso enjoy the "run and gun" line of modern RPGs, so be it, enjoy what you enjoy, but that doesn't somehow make the old games bad or worse than modern titles--they're just not your favorite flavor anymore.
Anyone remember Dragon Warrior and/or Final Fantasy for the NES?
Great games at the time, but today's RPGs are in many ways far far better (and I'm not talking about graphics and sound)! Honestly, I tried replaying Final Fantasy IV (originally II in the USA) a few years ago, and ugh. It was painful. Yeah, I have my fond memories, but I'll keep them as such.
It all depends on whether you're now completely slave to the more modern open world 3D RPGs or "traditional," old school turn based ones. I still enjoy both games you mentioned and would gladly play them over and over again versus anything modern with the Final Fantasy label slapped on it. Yeah, I would usually run around, goofing off in Skyrim or Fallout 3 before jumping back into Dragon Warrior or Final Fantasy, but that's moreso due to the amount of immersion and dedication those games require (to me, anyway, as if I leave off playing them for a week or two and come back I'll be forever trying to figure out what the heck I was doing) whereas I can easily hop in and out of the more modern titles and just refer to a handy in game menu of open quests and objectives should I need it.
I disagree with your statement that modern games are far far better. Modern games are different, and there are some which are legitimately better titles than older RPGs, but most of the old games still stand up well on their own as well as in comparison to more modern games. If you've gotten to the point where you moreso enjoy the "run and gun" line of modern RPGs, so be it, enjoy what you enjoy, but that doesn't somehow make the old games bad or worse than modern titles--they're just not your favorite flavor anymore.
I didn't actually say RPGs today are far far better, I said that they are far far better in some ways (makes a difference that
Sure, there were amazing RPGs back then (in fact, Ultima V, 1988, remains one of my favorite RPGs of all time). However, today you can find great indie RPGs that pay homage to classic RPGs (such as Pier Solar) or modern open world AAA RPGs such as Witcher III, or anything in between. As a long-time RPG fan I appreciate today's modern features such as in-game maps, non-random encounters, better dialogue/stories, quest logs, etc. Again, I tried playing FF IV a few years ago and couldn't stomach it. Now, I have to disagree with your statement "most of the old games still stand up well on their own". Nope. Some, yes, but most -not in my opinion, but to each their own of course.
I didn't actually say RPGs today are far far better, I said that they are far far better in some ways (makes a difference that
Sure, there were amazing RPGs back then (in fact, Ultima V, 1988, remains one of my favorite RPGs of all time). However, today you can find great indie RPGs that pay homage to classic RPGs (such as Pier Solar) or modern open world AAA RPGs such as Witcher III, or anything in between. As a long-time RPG fan I appreciate today's modern features such as in-game maps, non-random encounters, better dialogue/stories, quest logs, etc. Again, I tried playing FF IV a few years ago and couldn't stomach it. Now, I have to disagree with your statement "most of the old games still stand up well on their own". Nope. Some, yes, but most -not in my opinion, but to each their own of course.
I should have clarified, as I was thinking in my head of most of the commonly thought of RPGs from way back when and not all RPGs in general. Feel free to still disagree, but I still see the NES Dragon Warrior series, the NES/SNES Final Fantasies, Legend of Mana, Secret of Evermore, Chrono Trigger and heck, even some of the Game Boy stuff like Final Fantasy Legend as great, still fun to play games. If you want to broaden the horizon a bit (as you potentially did with Ultima V--you didn't specify if you played it on the NES or a computer), stuff like the AD&D Gold Box games (Pool of Radiance series, Krynn series, etc.), Wasteland, the Phantasie series, etc. all still stand up as great, fun to play games.
Yes, newer, more modern games have definitely introduced mechanics that are fantastic and make those games a lot of fun to play. But to me, that doesn't diminish the fun that I had (and still have, on occasion) with the older games that came before. I didn't like every title I came across, their gameplay, story, etc., but for those games I did play through and love, I still have fun with them, all the way through. In my mind, if it were just nostalgia, I would boot up the game, play for a few minutes and then put down the controller, unable to play further, probably akin to your experience with FFII/IV. So far, I've not had that experience with any of my old gaming haunts, even going all the way back to my Odyssey 2. I don't necessarily like all games for those older systems that I didn't experience back then, but I also don't dislike them for the older, more primitive experience that they provide--I've actually found lots of games that I didn't know about that I now enjoy playing and have a lot of fun with, despite their limitations.
Originally posted by: avatar!
Honestly, I tried replaying Final Fantasy IV (originally II in the USA) a few years ago, and ugh. It was painful.
You were crying, but it was not pain. It was the fact that Goblez telling you "Goodbye Bro" from the Moon touched you in an unexpected way, which you associate with pain, but it was not.
Is any dialog in FFIV (FFII us) good? Of course not. Several dialogs in the first six chapters of FF are empty and not worth to read, but still there was the will to tell a story, to make a thing the game designers had feelings about, to empathetically share a feeling with the player, and they were mocking and laughing at them selves with tons of self-irony in every chapter of the series (just think about the silliness of the chocobo, or in FFII the namingway guy, the scenes lost in translation unfortunately involving Cid and Edge, and so on...), and not a commercial product stereotyped story who cared to appeal the public in the most orthodox possible way, with big blades on males and big something else on females protagonists.
Today in Japan the Main Theme from FFII (us) is tough (?past tense of teach?) in schools to kids in music classes! Everyone recognize the silly 16x16px graphics of the black wizard. The original development team of FF at Square were just a bunch of genius put together from some strange alchemy somewhere in Japan, like the Beatles somewhere in Liverpool. It was their "last final fantasy", before quitting their job (and do something "serious" in their lives) of video game designer/developers, and that was the recipe which made them succeed, and make another fives.
Does Skyrym (whatever it is spelled) compare? No way.
Now, if you insist with FFII (us) being a pain to play, the only excuse it is that you are playing it wrong. Running away from combat IT IS an option. Once you have bought the best equipment at that stage of the game, what do you battle for? Run to the next boss already! Run run run. Explore, and run, trow away your money, who cares? If you really have trouble because under level (very unlikely) then gain few levels near the next boss, before facing it. And no, this is not counter intuitive, it is what good military strategy guys do in real life: battle the fight worth fighting, and avoid the fight not worth fighting. Sun Tzu also said so.
If you stop and fight every random battle that you triggered, well, then the game is utterly tedious and annoying (unless you really enjoy to bring your characters to absurd levels, and few players do); but in this case, I think, you missed to discover a very well implemented game mechanics (run away from battles) which was an option for the player in the game designers plans, and not a game design fault.
I can understand FFI being badly balanced in the beginning since really hard and level up enough is a bit a boring task to do in such phase, FFII having weirds mechanics, but FF III to VI (jp), were not annoying at all, and reasonably speaking perfectly balanced to don't be boring at all. If you like RPGs, and you like 2D games, I see no ways these games are not appealing.
All this being said, feel free to dislike FFII, no big deal, I won't care.
Just my 2 cents, hoping that my English is good enough to express myself.
Edit: ooops... I just realized that the post I was answering to is 11 days old.
I was going trough threads in the Gauntlet to find a conversation to follow, and this one was interesting, so I did not really realized that it was few days old already. Sorry about that.
Honestly, I tried replaying Final Fantasy IV (originally II in the USA) a few years ago, and ugh. It was painful.
You were crying, but it was not pain. It was the fact that Goblez telling you "Goodbye Bro" from the Moon touched you in an unexpected way, which you associate with pain, but it was not.
Is any dialog in FFIV (FFII us) good? Of course not. Several dialogs in the first six chapters of FF are empty and not worth to read, but still there was the will to tell a story, to make a thing the game designers had feelings about, to empathetically share a feeling with the player, and they were mocking and laughing at them selves with tons of self-irony in every chapter of the series (just think about the silliness of the chocobo, or in FFII the namingway guy, the scenes lost in translation unfortunately involving Cid and Edge, and so on...), and not a commercial product stereotyped story who cared to appeal the public in the most orthodox possible way, with big blades on males and big something else on females protagonists.
Today in Japan the Main Theme from FFII (us) is tough (?past tense of teach?) in schools to kids in music classes! Everyone recognize the silly 16x16px graphics of the black wizard. The original development team of FF at Square were just a bunch of genius put together from some strange alchemy somewhere in Japan, like the Beatles somewhere in Liverpool. It was their "last final fantasy", before quitting their job (and do something "serious" in their lives) of video game designer/developers, and that was the recipe which made them succeed, and make another fives.
Does Skyrym (whatever it is spelled) compare? No way.
Now, if you insist with FFII (us) being a pain to play, the only excuse it is that you are playing it wrong. Running away from combat IT IS an option. Once you have bought the best equipment at that stage of the game, what do you battle for? Run to the next boss already! Run run run. Explore, and run, trow away your money, who cares? If you really have trouble because under level (very unlikely) then gain few levels near the next boss, before facing it. And no, this is not counter intuitive, it is what good military strategy guys do in real life: battle the fight worth fighting, and avoid the fight not worth fighting. Sun Tzu also said so.
If you stop and fight every random battle that you triggered, well, then the game is utterly tedious and annoying (unless you really enjoy to bring your characters to absurd levels, and few players do); but in this case, I think, you missed to discover a very well implemented game mechanics (run away from battles) which was an option for the player in the game designers plans, and not a game design fault.
I can understand FFI being badly balanced in the beginning since really hard and level up enough is a bit a boring task to do in such phase, FFII having weirds mechanics, but FF III to VI (jp), were not annoying at all, and reasonably speaking perfectly balanced to don't be boring at all. If you like RPGs, and you like 2D games, I see no ways these games are not appealing.
All this being said, feel free to dislike FFII, no big deal, I won't care.
Just my 2 cents, hoping that my English is good enough to express myself.
Edit: ooops... I just realized that the post I was answering to is 11 days old.
I was going trough threads in the Gauntlet to find a conversation to follow, and this one was interesting, so I did not really realized that it was few days old already. Sorry about that.
*Slow clap*
Does Skyrym (whatever it is spelled) compare? No way.
You're entitled to your hyperoblic opinions which are given without much context, background, nor argument (I take it by your comment you never played Skyrim). However, I'll pass on Final Fantasy II/IV and will keep it tucked away in my nostalgia box which says "do not open unless you find yourself thrown back in time, and hopefully your memory has been erased so you don't realize how badly this has aged"
First thing to come to mind is I much prefer the Super Mario All-Stars versus the original trilogy on nes.
Gross
First thing to come to mind is I much prefer the Super Mario All-Stars versus the original trilogy on nes.
You're not the only one.
Bottom line is, I like to have the best of both worlds!
Originally posted by: avatar!
No, no, really. I just don't think FF IV holds up well, even if it is a "classic" RPG. Everyone is entitled to his/her opinions. However, I did replay Dragon Quest IV, V, and VI on the DS a few years ago. I was amazed at how well those held up, especially DQ IV. Those games also had random encounters, but you could limit it, and it seemed far more random than in FF IV, which I think was something like every 3 seconds or so.
Does Skyrym (whatever it is spelled) compare? No way.
You're entitled to your hyperoblic opinions which are given without much context, background, nor argument (I take it by your comment you never played Skyrim). However, I'll pass on Final Fantasy II/IV and will keep it tucked away in my nostalgia box which says "do not open unless you find yourself thrown back in time, and hopefully your memory has been erased so you don't realize how badly this has aged"
Thanks for the reply.
Two things I really like about NA: you are entitled to have your opinion and no one gets angry about it, even if in disagreement; and that people honestly state what they think, without hypocrisy, and I think that an honest relaxed talk about a subject two sides disagree, it is way more cool than silly drama.
"You're entitled to your hyperoblic opinions"
Well spotted. My whole post was hyperbolic, of course, the same way you will be hyperbolic describing the taste of your favorite food, like someone stating, for instance: "are you kidding me? Pizza is the best invention ever!". To someone liking pizza, it does make sense, to someone else, it would sound so wrong to hear.
"I take it by your comment you never played Skyrim"
Kind of well spotted (I did not intensively played the game) but not entirely true. I tried it out (a friend proposed it to me when it was released) and it was unappealing to me. Very nice Celtic sounding epic music, of course, but still, from a purely artistic stand point, far far away from the SNES soundtracks of FFII us and FF III us. There are few very cute concepts, and lots of options; but, from such brief experience, overall it seems a washed up plastic looking stereotype of a fantasy game on a huge map you don't even really explore, and adding in the equation the little challenge of quick saves in every place you want, the overall annoying controls, and mechanics, and the lack of a truly engaging RPG element (Role Playing Game, it is not about leveling, but it is about caring about a character story in a fictional world), did not helped leaving a positive mark on my books. Also, generally I do prefer 2D graphics over 3D graphics in video games. And I dislike to have to use a mouse to play a video game. Probably my opinion here has little value, from the fact that, as I already stated, I tried the game an afternoon, but not intensively played the game any longer.
I played for a little longer Baldur's Gate (again, a friend borrowed it to me), and same thing, not appealing: infinite save points, little challenge, little involvement, weak predictable story, boring mechanics, mouse control, real time instead of turns, run away from a battle is a mess, you have to fight everything on screen... it seems like a munchkin D&D (pencil and paper) power player taking over the design of a video game (level 1 defeat the goblin, level 2 defeat the orc, level 3 defeat the troll, ...), with little NPC interaction and sentences repeated over and over to boredom (I'm going, I can but try, As you will, yes oh omnipresent authority, Heeelm, ....aaaarghhh!! enough already!!!). I quited after a dozen of screens or so. It did not leave a very positive mark on my books. Sorry.
"Those games also had random encounters, but you could limit it, and it seemed far more random than in FF IV, which I think was something like every 3 seconds or so."
This one was already covered. Random encounter (and boring battles) are tedious. Run away from useless battles. Really. Please do so. It was intended, it is advised even in the manual (disclaimer: I am not sure, but I remember so). If you fight every battle, then it can become utterly annoying, of course. Yet again, that's not the game design fault, if you play it missing the acknowledgment of the existence of a feature (I really doubt that this last sentence structure is correct English wise, but please be nice, it is not my first language).
"so you don't realize how badly this has aged"
I cannot disagree more, since they are in the few games that I still play with enthusiasm today.
Yet, I recognize that probably people do not look for the same elements when playing a RPG, or a video game in general.
I respect your opinion, but just can't say that I agree.
They could reduce the urge to gather worthless loot, and encourage more responsible use of quick saves. Then have an option for enhanced quest descriptors giving you a suggestion what approaches to them are likely to be effective/enjoyable.
When you feel like you can do anything, go anywhere, it risks feeling unrewarding. Reminds me of why I've grown tired of cheat codes, Sim City and its ilk, create-a-player modes, etc over the years.
Disagree if you want, but you still get articles like this:
"Thirteen years after release, Baldur's Gate II is still one of the best role-playing games of all time. No joke. If you consider yourself an RPG fan, this is a game you have to play."
http://kotaku.com/baldurs-gate-ii-is-still-one-of-the-greatest-rpgs-ever-1278311582
Originally posted by: avatar!
Baldur's Gate, now there, is a great RPG! Has it aged well? Not graphically, but in other ways yes. It was always always meant to be played in its entirety, a trilogy. Truthfully, the first game, is a bit on the boring side. Fairly predictable. However, Baldur's Gate II really takes off. The storyline becomes darker, more intense, more exciting, more meaningful. Having played through it, as well as FF IV of course, I would add that in terms of depth of storyline, there is no comparison. Baldur's Gate >> FF IV.
Disagree if you want, but you still get articles like this:
"Thirteen years after release, Baldur's Gate II is still one of the best role-playing games of all time. No joke. If you consider yourself an RPG fan, this is a game you have to play."
http://kotaku.com/baldurs-gate-ii...
The beauty of opinions! Ask for 100, and you are lucky if you get 99 different and 1 I don't know.
I guessed you would say that you liked Baldur's Gate.
I played only the first Baldur's Gate, and for a while (like a dozen of screens, or a little more, up to when you meet your best party members and reach the carnival I think), then I quit playing and never felt like "what next?". And, believe me, the same way you dislike FF IV battle system, I genuinely dislike that chaotic pseudo real time spacebar mouse combo in battle. I'd rather play FF IV once more.
Even in those years, some of my friends (usually munchkin power player also when playing paper and pencil RPGs) would say exactly what you say (and insist to borrow the game once again to prove their point) or claim wonders about FF VII which I never find appealing; some others did prefer the 2D games from Square like me, or even in 3D polygon graphics on a Sony PS (later PS1, however I only had NES and SNES), they, like me, would prefer to play FF IX (a reboot from previous FF chapters, and Vivi!).
Obviously, there are different best RPG games for different people.
First thing to come to mind is I much prefer the Super Mario All-Stars versus the original trilogy on nes.
I really like All Stars too. It's hard for me to choose but I think the NES ones are easier to control.
First thing to come to mind is I much prefer the Super Mario All-Stars versus the original trilogy on nes.
I really like All Stars too. It's hard for me to choose but I think the NES ones are easier to control.
For the longest time I would have agreed with you but I think that now I've become to accustomed to the SNES controls I find it to be the opposite! I've beat the first and third ones on the nes and would like to play through the second so I better get reanquianted with the original controls and lack of save features
Originally posted by: avatar!
Never understood the appeal of FF VII. I wonder if maybe it was just a bunch of kids that had never experienced FF IV and FF VI or other RPGs that decided FF VII was the greatest game ever made? Because frankly, I'd rather play SO many games rather than have to go through that painful game again. In fact, FF VII is the game that stopped my interest with anything Final Fantasy (except Tactics which is my favorite FF game of all time)! So, although I think FF IV hasn't aged well, it's overall just a much better game than VII in my opinion.
Ah! Finally we agree on something video game related!
Never understood the appeal of FF VII. I wonder if maybe it was just a bunch of kids that had never experienced FF IV and FF VI or other RPGs that decided FF VII was the greatest game ever made? Because frankly, I'd rather play SO many games rather than have to go through that painful game again. In fact, FF VII is the game that stopped my interest with anything Final Fantasy (except Tactics which is my favorite FF game of all time)! So, although I think FF IV hasn't aged well, it's overall just a much better game than VII in my opinion.
The only appeal of FF7, IMO, was the novelty of it when it was released, compared to what had come before.
That is, when it came out, it was one of the first RPGs to have extended cutscenes, and all sorts of crazy battle animations.
(before those concepts were played out and annoying)
Looking back, though, I completely agree that the game doesn't hold much lasting appeal.
Sorry man. SMB3 felt refined while SMW felt rushed and incomplete (loved both though; also, SMW2:Y'sI redeemed the series for me).
But regardless of one's feeling about SMW2, it strikes me as strange to view SMW as not being an improvement over SMB3.
SMW added little value from SMB3, imo. The addition of Yoshi and save points, but Mario 3 offered a game that was equally as diverse, if not moreso, than SMW in terms of level design, enemies, etc. Furthermore, by the time SMW came around, it was all old hat, a rehash. So I personally feel SMW wasn't such a large improvement at all, and the point could further be argued considering talented folks in Taiwan had managed to basically do a backport of SMW onto the NES, and it turned out pretty decent. If it was such a large improvement and not just a minor thing, a task like this wouldn't have been nearly as feasible. It is just a SMB3 sequel, at best.
A few years back I used to bring my GBC and b/w GB to school and let the children play on them, and they loved playing the games. They would always pass the machines around, and even prefer to play them over the smart phone games they had. I am not sure if it was due to novelty, or just because the games were more fun, and had more substance to them (I suspect the latter to be the case).
I do feel that sometimes the later games in a series are much better than originals, however; cases would be the Adventure Island series, for example. The second and third games in the series are a huge improvement from the first one, imo. I find the first to be barely playable, but love playing the two aforementioned sequels. The Ghouls n Ghosts series is another example. While I enjoy the NES version, its controls definitely feel rather stiff and a bit primitive compared to the SNES sequel. And the original Mario Kart I can't stand to play, yet love the rest of the series.
Sorry man. SMB3 felt refined while SMW felt rushed and incomplete (loved both though; also, SMW2:Y'sI redeemed the series for me).
But regardless of one's feeling about SMW2, it strikes me as strange to view SMW as not being an improvement over SMB3.
SMW added little value from SMB3, imo. The addition of Yoshi and save points, but Mario 3 offered a game that was equally as diverse, if not moreso, than SMW in terms of level design, enemies, etc. Furthermore, by the time SMW came around, it was all old hat, a rehash. So I personally feel SMW wasn't such a large improvement at all, and the point could further be argued considering talented folks in Taiwan had managed to basically do a backport of SMW onto the NES, and it turned out pretty decent. If it was such a large improvement and not just a minor thing, a task like this wouldn't have been nearly as feasible. It is just a SMB3 sequel, at best.
I completely disagree with pretty much everything you have to say in this paragraph.
1) SMW has a much larger diversity of level design, and introduces concepts like keys for secret exits, the switch blocks, ghost houses, Star Road, etc.
Mario 3 didn't even introduce the concept of themed worlds, since that was first done in SMB2.
The only thing of greater variety in SMB3 is the number of suits Mario can wear.
2) Being able to "demake" the game isn't really a mark of it not being a worthy upgrade/successor. It just means that certain graphical elements could be stripped back and simplified, and that there were workarounds for special mode useage on the SNES (i.e. removing things like stretched or rotating sprites -- which has to mean simplifying the boss levels)
There are plenty of "pirate" (in the IP sense) NES/famicom games that use MUCH LARGER memory spaces and more complex mappers than typical NES/famicom games.
So just because they managed to do a demake (not clear from your post what percentage of the game actually made the conversion) it says nothing about whether the feat would have been possible on EXISTING and legitimate tools available to NES/famicom developers of the actual time period.
(i.e. nobody in the period was making 2MB+ NES games like the FF7 demake, Legend of Link -- which uses both MMC5 AND 2MB of memory, etc)
I really just think it's an invalid comparison, overall, since there is quite a lot of technical comparison that you're leaving out or ignoring and simply accepting the demade game as "pretty decent" and saying that makes it not much better than SMB3.
A properly motivated studio could do THE SAME THING with almost any game on the SNES, if they were so inclined, with the real exception being a matter of reducing the play control to the NES controller limitations. (which for SMW already drops a lot of stuff you can do in-game)
SMB3 was a great game. But it is a total joke to try and claim that SMW isn't a significant upgrade.