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.
I agree with SOME of this paragraph, but not the Adventure Island example.
Adventure Island (the original) is a really solid game, with the caveat that it is too hard for a lot of people.
AI2 and AI3 are MUCH MUCH easier -- level design is more forgiving, the dinosaurs have powerful attacks and give an extra hitpoint, etc.
They are fun games, for sure. But they might as well be from a different series, for how radically the challenge had shifted.
Super Ghouls and Ghosts, though -- I completely agree. The original is extremely crude by comparison to the SNES sequel, where even though BEATING IT is still extremely tough, just PLAYING the game and making some measure of progress no longer feels like a task for masochists-only.
(the original Mario Kart... yup, agree there, as well -- it is slow. It is ugly. It is very "plain" in design. When comparing to anything that came later, at least)
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.
Originally posted by: user
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."
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.
Like most NES owners, mine included SMB/Duck Hunt. We couldn't afford much so SMB3 was the only additional NES game we ever got. In several years with little else to play I thoroughly mastered it and THOUGHT I was done with it by the time I finally sold my NES to get my SNES Control Set with no games (~Feb. 1994; most got the Super Set). I bought a cheap used Super Mario World the same day and got to work.
When the free Super Mario All*Stars cartridge arrived by mail several weeks later I had already 100% completed SMW: *96. I spent another week 100% completing the new-to-me SMA*S stuff (Lost Levels and SMB2). When finished I reflected on all of it and something hit me: despite being stuck with it as my only game for several years, I wasn't sick of SMB3 and I wanted to play it more than any of my other games including SMW.
I still play both regularly but I continue playing significantly more of SMB3."
I guess I'll answer with more detail here.
First, your example of progress-saving is actually one that I think demonstrates the opposite:
Implementing progress saving was actually easier than designing around it. SMB3 was designed in such a way that you could get to any world you want within a few minutes of starting the game and actually finish the game in 15 minutes, but you had to earn it with prior-developed skill and knowledge from earlier exploration/accomplishment (the letters reveal the location of secrets). This preserved a ton or replayability for SMB3 even after finishing it, where starting a new file on SMW is just another systematic slog to *96 (100% completion). Leaving significant parts of the game unexplored and out of reach without skill, experience, and dedication greatly expanded replayability and this was directly harmed with progress saving.
Watch a skilled player play SMB3 and look at how tight it plays. A lot of that is thanks to polish and tweaking to the levels and play control that SMW simply didn't get. I'm no slouch at either, but you can instantly tell that I'm a skilled player in SMB3 and SMW just doesn't demonstrate that.
To demonstrate, here is Ichinisan casually playing SMB3 to test a controller:
Notice that he also met the requirements for changing the Hammer Brother to a Coin Ship?
He's just as skilled at SMW, but SMW feels like a kid with a level editor made half the levels and there's less immediate opportunity to demonstrate intimate knowledge/skill. Who thought that starting the game with a completely non-threatening empty Koopa shell with a ridiculous number of Koopas lined up for you to easily defeat was a good idea? "Playing around" seems to have been the predominating level-design ethos.
Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island demonstrates attention to detail and polish when a doorway doesn't just nonsensically scroll against the background, clearly leading nowhere. Yoshi's arms actually match the rest of his body color, which was another sloppy issue from the original SMW (arms were always green). Super Mario World out-right calls Luigi "Mario" if you beat the game with him! Try it. You don't even need a second player: unplug the first controller and start a 1p game with the second controller. SMW has paths that must clear back over each other and quirks like completion points that don't add to your file unless you walk over a certain path and save it. The level count is inflated by silly things like which door you picked between two consecutive doors, while other levels only count as one even when it branches eight ways!
A testament to SMW being rushed in comparison is that there are so many go-nowhere game mechanics that were newly introduced and then never revisited, presumably because they would not have been in SMW if the game had a longer dev cycle. The little fits that would break out between players sharing/stealing lives, football players filling the screen with baseballs, the secret directional trigger points for revealing some items (I've never been able to deliberately get a certain one in Yoshi's Island I to appear though it has happened accidentally), the Super Famicom logo in the SNES game, unrecognizable "tomato" Goombas, and so on. With another year of development I doubt completing the Special world would have irreversibly changed the colors and enemies in the rest of the game (have to delete your file if you want to play normally again). Heck, even seeing the backgrounds scroll opposite directions during the cast roll is distracting. Fixing that would have fixed Reznor's missing wheel (scaling/rotating layers typically replace the background layer).
SMW2 oozes polish everywhere, from the way eating an enemy leaves behind their camouflage, stilts, spear, etc to the way a leaf platform gives ever so slightly when you stand on it. At the time of SMW2's release I was a world-class Donkey Kong Country player and I didn't think it was possible for traditional platformers to ever compare to it in graphics or gameplay, but SMW2 proved me wrong.
Getting 100% in SMW2 was way more challenging than SMW and yet the game was disarming and easy enough for casual players who just wanted to finish it normally. The extra depth and challenge was there if you wanted it, and I definitely wanted it! I was pleasantly surprised to find that the new special stages in the GBA version were more than up to par, even if the rest of the game was cut down a little (no Super FX chip on GBA).
You want to talk about boss variety? SMW2 by a LONG shot. SMW out-right re-used bosses even though it was on a system capable enough to handle much more variety. "Oh no! The deadline is fast approaching and we still don't have bosses for world X, Y, and Z. Quick: rehash some earlier bosses and add a couple fireballs! Problem solved." Sure, SMB3 also had iterative variations between Koopalings but they added about as much variety as they could in an NES game that either has to limit the number of bosses or has to do small tricks to add variety over the course of the game. They chose the option that maintained a sprawling world with plenty to explore. Even that choice goes to show the polish. Every sacrifice or inclusion was made with careful consideration for its impact on the game as a whole. SMW having fewer limitations and then still rehashing bosses despite no longer needing to is another testament to it feeling rushed.
SMB3 had map exploration too. Not everything was just given to you! Saving your hammer to access the canoe in Water Land or finding the secret area in Dessert Land are examples.
I absolutely hate how there is no consequence to getting game over in the modern remakes of many classic games. In SMB3, much thought went into how progress past a certain point would be maintained even after a Game Over. There are strategically placed locked doors and return paths that will allow you to bypass levels you've already proven you can finish, but they remain uncleared as a reminder of your failure and a tantalizing opportunity to power up (regenerated items often remain locked away behind these levels). SMW just dumps you back to the last save point and requires you to beat a castle, mini-fortress, or ghost house in order to save (they changed this in later versions). Heck, the manual out-right says that you can't even re-enter a defeated castle or mini-fortress to save when you can by holding L + R. This intentional requirement also causes the life exchange window to awkwardly pop up on 2p which you have to dismiss to enter, which is another example of poor polish.
SMW2 took a different route entirely. It incentivized skill not by progression barriers and disparate save points, but by leveraging your natural instinct to react to a crying baby. You don't want to lose the baby and you want the baby back ASAP, even just to shut it up! Admit it: it works. When you lose Baby Mario, the player wants him back DESPERATELY. This panic was exactly what the designers wanted, and they nailed it.
Ironically, I probably love SMW more than the people defending it. I just don't think it was as important or significant as SMB3 and it sits one rung lower for good reasons. It had less polish and it showed in the final result.
Originally posted by: arch_8ngel
Originally posted by: tracker465
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)
Switch blocks were actually introduced in SMB3, though persistent changes across all worlds was new to SMW, it was iterative.
This older version of my reply that I dug out of my notes app retreads some ground but has enough that I didn't work in above to warrant inclusion:
To discuss some of what's wrong with SMW, it's helpful to discuss some of what's wrong with later versions of Super Mario All*Stars. Remember how jarring it was that doors scroll against the background and lead seemingly nowhere? The NES version didn't do that. This was not an unavoidable issue with adding a parallax scrolling background because it's the easiest fix: just add a fixed background graphic around the door, like a stone wall or a structure. That's the same way modern games do it. SMW2 went even further!
Similarly, the SMB3 remaster almost seems to go out of its way to break the scrolling in the tank stage! The ground was designed to hide the auto-scrolling and make it appear like the tanks were moving while the screen was staying still. Even though it is night time in the level they felt you had to see the dirt in the remaster, so now you have dirt that scrolls under Mario's feet even when he's standing still. They animated the dirt moving to the right so that it doesn't scroll as fast, but that means they spent even more effort and still failed to fix it! Pretty sure they were only trying to increase the perceived speed of the tanks so it wouldn't be obviously too slow.
These kinds of things along with the other stuff I mentioned add up to what made SMW feel sloppy/lazy/rushed in comparison to the original SMB3.
CZroe, something about your reply is breaking my ability to quote it, so I'll just offer a brief reply here:
"I absolutely hate how there is no consequence to getting game over in the modern remakes of many classic games. In SMB3, much thought went into how progress past a certain point would be maintained even after a Game Over. There are strategically place locked doors and rerun paths that will allow you to bypass levels you've already proven you can finish, but they remain uncleared as a reminder of your failure and a tantalizing opportunity to power up (regenerated items often remain locked away behind these levels). SMW just dumps you back to the last save point and requires you to beat a castle, mini-fortress, or ghost house in order to save (they changed this in later versions). Heck, the manual out-right says that you can't even re-enter a defeated castle or mini-fortress to save when you can by holding L + R. This intentional requirement also causes the life exchange window to awkwardly pop up on 2p which you have to dismiss to enter, which is another example of poor polish."
I'm certainly not in the camp that would accuse EITHER game (SMB3 or SMW) as being difficult, overall.
There are definitely a few challenging levels in SMB3 that don't have a solidly challenging counterpart in SMW.
But the fact is, in SMB3, unless you are TERRIBLE at it, you have pretty much maxed out the life counter by the time you reach any of the hard areas, anyway.
So I don't necessarily agree with the comparative consequence (saves in SMW vs not in SMB3) to be of much relevance, once you have any level of competence at either game.
Bear in mind, your complaints about 2-player play aren't going to be universally shared.
I doubt I am in a minority that predominantly played these games in a single player mode, to where I simply haven't spent enough time in 2P mode to ever encounter the quirks.
CZroe, something about your reply is breaking my ability to quote it, so I'll just offer a brief reply here:
"I absolutely hate how there is no consequence to getting game over in the modern remakes of many classic games. In SMB3, much thought went into how progress past a certain point would be maintained even after a Game Over. There are strategically place[d] locked doors and rerun[return] paths that will allow you to bypass levels you've already proven you can finish, but they remain uncleared as a reminder of your failure and a tantalizing opportunity to power up (regenerated items often remain locked away behind these levels). SMW just dumps you back to the last save point and requires you to beat a castle, mini-fortress, or ghost house in order to save (they changed this in later versions). Heck, the manual out-right says that you can't even re-enter a defeated castle or mini-fortress to save when you can by holding L + R. This intentional requirement also causes the life exchange window to awkwardly pop up on 2p which you have to dismiss to enter, which is another example of poor polish."
I'm certainly not in the camp that would accuse EITHER game (SMB3 or SMW) as being difficult, overall.
There are definitely a few challenging levels in SMB3 that don't have a solidly challenging counterpart in SMW.
But the fact is, in SMB3, unless you are TERRIBLE at it, you have pretty much maxed out the life counter by the time you reach any of the hard areas, anyway.
So I don't necessarily agree with the comparative consequence (saves in SMW vs not in SMB3) to be of much relevance, once you have any level of competence at either game.
Bear in mind, your complaints about 2-player play aren't going to be universally shared.
I doubt I am in a minority that predominantly played these games in a single player mode, to where I simply haven't spent enough time in 2P mode to ever encounter the quirks.
Another cool thing about 2p in SMB3 was that a better player could alternately choose to play backwards to help clear the path for the player who got Game Over and continued. Because those levels were previously cleared by the other player, it also lets the player who missed them experience those levels. The other option (finishing the world or opening a locked door on the map to allow the other player to return) is the one players usually pick.
Bear in mind, your complaints about 2-player play aren't going to be universally shared.
I doubt I am in a minority that predominantly played these games in a single player mode, to where I simply haven't spent enough time in 2P mode to ever encounter the quirks.
Another cool thing about 2p in SMB3 was that a better player could alternately choose to play backwards to help clear the path for the player who got Game Over and continued. Because those levels were previously cleared by the other player, it also lets the other player experience something he/she missed. The other option (finishing the world or opening a locked door on the map to allow the other player to return) is the one player's usually pick.
As a pick-up-and-play 2P experience, I'll agree that you've made a good case for SMB3 as giving more 2P variety than SMW.
That just isn't how I had the bulk of my experience with those games, growing up.
Bear in mind, your complaints about 2-player play aren't going to be universally shared.
I doubt I am in a minority that predominantly played these games in a single player mode, to where I simply haven't spent enough time in 2P mode to ever encounter the quirks.
Another cool thing about 2p in SMB3 was that a better player could alternately choose to play backwards to help clear the path for the player who got Game Over and continued. Because those levels were previously cleared by the other player, it also lets the other player experience something he/she missed. The other option (finishing the world or opening a locked door on the map to allow the other player to return) is the one players usually pick.
As a pick-up-and-play 2P experience, I'll agree that you've made a good case for SMB3 as giving more 2P variety than SMW.
That just isn't how I had the bulk of my experience with those games, growing up.
Thanks to the SNES console's jack-sensing, Ichinisan and I were playing 2p even before we owned a 2nd controller! That's a point in SMW's corner even though they added it with SMA*S version of SMB3. Anyone know if the NES was even capable of this? I don't know of any 2p NES games that configured automatically for 2p alternating with one controller or prevented you from selecting the 2p option with only one controller inserted.
Bear in mind, your complaints about 2-player play aren't going to be universally shared.
I doubt I am in a minority that predominantly played these games in a single player mode, to where I simply haven't spent enough time in 2P mode to ever encounter the quirks.
Another cool thing about 2p in SMB3 was that a better player could alternately choose to play backwards to help clear the path for the player who got Game Over and continued. Because those levels were previously cleared by the other player, it also lets the other player experience something he/she missed. The other option (finishing the world or opening a locked door on the map to allow the other player to return) is the one players usually pick.
As a pick-up-and-play 2P experience, I'll agree that you've made a good case for SMB3 as giving more 2P variety than SMW.
That just isn't how I had the bulk of my experience with those games, growing up.
Thanks to the SNES console's jack-sensing, Ichinisan and I were playing 2p even before we owned a 2nd controller! That's a point in SMW's corner even though they added it with SMA*S version of SMB3. Anyone know if the NES was even capable of this? I don't know if any 2p games that did it.
I had no idea that the SNES could auto-detect a single controller for back-and-forth 2P use.
The only "controller swapping" I know of on the NES was saying a prayer and trying to hot-swap the controller without resetting the console
Bear in mind, your complaints about 2-player play aren't going to be universally shared.
I doubt I am in a minority that predominantly played these games in a single player mode, to where I simply haven't spent enough time in 2P mode to ever encounter the quirks.
Another cool thing about 2p in SMB3 was that a better player could alternately choose to play backwards to help clear the path for the player who got Game Over and continued. Because those levels were previously cleared by the other player, it also lets the other player experience something he/she missed. The other option (finishing the world or opening a locked door on the map to allow the other player to return) is the one players usually pick.
As a pick-up-and-play 2P experience, I'll agree that you've made a good case for SMB3 as giving more 2P variety than SMW.
That just isn't how I had the bulk of my experience with those games, growing up.
Thanks to the SNES console's jack-sensing, Ichinisan and I were playing 2p even before we owned a 2nd controller! That's a point in SMW's corner even though they added it with SMA*S version of SMB3. Anyone know if the NES was even capable of this? I don't know if any 2p games that did it.
I had no idea that the SNES could auto-detect a single controller for back-and-forth 2P use.
The only "controller swapping" I know of on the NES was saying a prayer and trying to hot-swap the controller without resetting the console
Yeah! SMB3 in SMA*S blocks the Mario Bros mini game and lets you alternate with one controller. There's even a buzz sound effect that plays when you try to pick "Battle Game" from the SMB3 SMA*S title screen.
IIRC, playing SMW 1p from the second controller port would play the entire game as Luigi, though the game calls him Mario at the end!
IIRC, playing SMW 1p from the second controller port would play the entire game as Luigi, though the game calls him Mario at the end!
yeah, but he was really only a palette swap of Mario in world. If you play all stars + world, he plays differently and I believe the name is fixed
Well, there's also the L in the HUD and other places. Sure, the character itself is just a pallet swap in SMW (and many prior Mario games) but he's still just a sprite-swap in SMAS+SMW. IIRC, the first time he played differently in SMW was in Super Mario Advance 2: Super Mario World. I was so excited to play I imported a sealed copy before the US release and got burned by a counterfeit! They counterfeited the box, shrink warps, manual, and even the code embossed on the inner cardboard tray, but they couldn't even get the tri-wing screw!
IIRC, playing SMW 1p from the second controller port would play the entire game as Luigi, though the game calls him Mario at the end!
yeah, but he was really only a palette swap of Mario in world. If you play all stars + world, he plays differently and I believe the name is fixed
Well, there's also the L in the HUD and other places. Sure, the character itself is just a pallet swap in SMW (and many prior Mario games) but he's still just a sprite-swap in SMAS+SMW. IIRC, the first time he played differently in SMW was in Super Mario Advance 2: Super Mario World. I was so excited to play I imported a sealed copy before the US release and got burned by a counterfeit! They counterfeited the box, shrink warps, manual, and even the code embossed on the inner cardboard tray, but they couldn't even get the tri-wing screw!
No I'm almost positive Luigi plays differently in All-stars+world. Jumps higher and stuff. If I wasn't at work I'd test it out right now, but it works if you plug a controller into player 2
IIRC, playing SMW 1p from the second controller port would play the entire game as Luigi, though the game calls him Mario at the end!
yeah, but he was really only a palette swap of Mario in world. If you play all stars + world, he plays differently and I believe the name is fixed
Well, there's also the L in the HUD and other places. Sure, the character itself is just a pallet swap in SMW (and many prior Mario games) but he's still just a sprite-swap in SMAS+SMW. IIRC, the first time he played differently in SMW was in Super Mario Advance 2: Super Mario World. I was so excited to play I imported a sealed copy before the US release and got burned by a counterfeit! They counterfeited the box, shrink warps, manual, and even the code embossed on the inner cardboard tray, but they couldn't even get the tri-wing screw!
I'm almost positive Luigi plays differently in All-stars+world. Jumps higher and stuff. If I wasn't at work I'd test it out right now, but it works if you plug a controller into player 2
Barely had enough time but I checked on my lunch break:
Too late for me to reshoot that Luigi pic now that I've discovered how poorly it came out but it shows what it needs to show.
Luigi jumps and then puts his legs forward to butt-stomp for his falling frames where Mario's hat would lift from his head. It looks funny but plays exactly the same.
Those Luigi sprites were also yet again just for the west. Super Famicom never got the first US enhancements (re-entering castles, 96 exists icon...), least of all All Stars+world.
I also have an E-rated SMW that was obviously made after SMA*S+SMW (heck, it was made after the SM64) but it had the exact same ROM chip as the earlier stand-alone carts.
Got a display box too. Definitely loves me some SMW, even if I think it feels rushed and less-polished compared to SMB3. I'm not hatin'
Comments
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.
I agree with SOME of this paragraph, but not the Adventure Island example.
Adventure Island (the original) is a really solid game, with the caveat that it is too hard for a lot of people.
AI2 and AI3 are MUCH MUCH easier -- level design is more forgiving, the dinosaurs have powerful attacks and give an extra hitpoint, etc.
They are fun games, for sure. But they might as well be from a different series, for how radically the challenge had shifted.
Super Ghouls and Ghosts, though -- I completely agree. The original is extremely crude by comparison to the SNES sequel, where even though BEATING IT is still extremely tough, just PLAYING the game and making some measure of progress no longer feels like a task for masochists-only.
(the original Mario Kart... yup, agree there, as well -- it is slow. It is ugly. It is very "plain" in design. When comparing to anything that came later, at least)
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.
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-is-still-one-of-the-greate...
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.
Every RPG mentioned in these posts is awesome
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.
Here's my answer to the "SMB3 or SMW?" question from another forum:
https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/smw-or-smb3.2455180/
"Super Mario Bros. 3. No question.
Like most NES owners, mine included SMB/Duck Hunt. We couldn't afford much so SMB3 was the only additional NES game we ever got. In several years with little else to play I thoroughly mastered it and THOUGHT I was done with it by the time I finally sold my NES to get my SNES Control Set with no games (~Feb. 1994; most got the Super Set). I bought a cheap used Super Mario World the same day and got to work.
When the free Super Mario All*Stars cartridge arrived by mail several weeks later I had already 100% completed SMW: *96. I spent another week 100% completing the new-to-me SMA*S stuff (Lost Levels and SMB2). When finished I reflected on all of it and something hit me: despite being stuck with it as my only game for several years, I wasn't sick of SMB3 and I wanted to play it more than any of my other games including SMW.
I still play both regularly but I continue playing significantly more of SMB3."
I guess I'll answer with more detail here.
First, your example of progress-saving is actually one that I think demonstrates the opposite:
Implementing progress saving was actually easier than designing around it. SMB3 was designed in such a way that you could get to any world you want within a few minutes of starting the game and actually finish the game in 15 minutes, but you had to earn it with prior-developed skill and knowledge from earlier exploration/accomplishment (the letters reveal the location of secrets). This preserved a ton or replayability for SMB3 even after finishing it, where starting a new file on SMW is just another systematic slog to *96 (100% completion). Leaving significant parts of the game unexplored and out of reach without skill, experience, and dedication greatly expanded replayability and this was directly harmed with progress saving.
Watch a skilled player play SMB3 and look at how tight it plays. A lot of that is thanks to polish and tweaking to the levels and play control that SMW simply didn't get. I'm no slouch at either, but you can instantly tell that I'm a skilled player in SMB3 and SMW just doesn't demonstrate that.
To demonstrate, here is Ichinisan casually playing SMB3 to test a controller:
Notice that he also met the requirements for changing the Hammer Brother to a Coin Ship?
He's just as skilled at SMW, but SMW feels like a kid with a level editor made half the levels and there's less immediate opportunity to demonstrate intimate knowledge/skill. Who thought that starting the game with a completely non-threatening empty Koopa shell with a ridiculous number of Koopas lined up for you to easily defeat was a good idea? "Playing around" seems to have been the predominating level-design ethos.
Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island demonstrates attention to detail and polish when a doorway doesn't just nonsensically scroll against the background, clearly leading nowhere. Yoshi's arms actually match the rest of his body color, which was another sloppy issue from the original SMW (arms were always green). Super Mario World out-right calls Luigi "Mario" if you beat the game with him! Try it. You don't even need a second player: unplug the first controller and start a 1p game with the second controller. SMW has paths that must clear back over each other and quirks like completion points that don't add to your file unless you walk over a certain path and save it. The level count is inflated by silly things like which door you picked between two consecutive doors, while other levels only count as one even when it branches eight ways!
A testament to SMW being rushed in comparison is that there are so many go-nowhere game mechanics that were newly introduced and then never revisited, presumably because they would not have been in SMW if the game had a longer dev cycle. The little fits that would break out between players sharing/stealing lives, football players filling the screen with baseballs, the secret directional trigger points for revealing some items (I've never been able to deliberately get a certain one in Yoshi's Island I to appear though it has happened accidentally), the Super Famicom logo in the SNES game, unrecognizable "tomato" Goombas, and so on. With another year of development I doubt completing the Special world would have irreversibly changed the colors and enemies in the rest of the game (have to delete your file if you want to play normally again). Heck, even seeing the backgrounds scroll opposite directions during the cast roll is distracting. Fixing that would have fixed Reznor's missing wheel (scaling/rotating layers typically replace the background layer).
SMW2 oozes polish everywhere, from the way eating an enemy leaves behind their camouflage, stilts, spear, etc to the way a leaf platform gives ever so slightly when you stand on it. At the time of SMW2's release I was a world-class Donkey Kong Country player and I didn't think it was possible for traditional platformers to ever compare to it in graphics or gameplay, but SMW2 proved me wrong.
Getting 100% in SMW2 was way more challenging than SMW and yet the game was disarming and easy enough for casual players who just wanted to finish it normally. The extra depth and challenge was there if you wanted it, and I definitely wanted it! I was pleasantly surprised to find that the new special stages in the GBA version were more than up to par, even if the rest of the game was cut down a little (no Super FX chip on GBA).
You want to talk about boss variety? SMW2 by a LONG shot. SMW out-right re-used bosses even though it was on a system capable enough to handle much more variety. "Oh no! The deadline is fast approaching and we still don't have bosses for world X, Y, and Z. Quick: rehash some earlier bosses and add a couple fireballs! Problem solved." Sure, SMB3 also had iterative variations between Koopalings but they added about as much variety as they could in an NES game that either has to limit the number of bosses or has to do small tricks to add variety over the course of the game. They chose the option that maintained a sprawling world with plenty to explore. Even that choice goes to show the polish. Every sacrifice or inclusion was made with careful consideration for its impact on the game as a whole. SMW having fewer limitations and then still rehashing bosses despite no longer needing to is another testament to it feeling rushed.
SMB3 had map exploration too. Not everything was just given to you! Saving your hammer to access the canoe in Water Land or finding the secret area in Dessert Land are examples.
I absolutely hate how there is no consequence to getting game over in the modern remakes of many classic games. In SMB3, much thought went into how progress past a certain point would be maintained even after a Game Over. There are strategically placed locked doors and return paths that will allow you to bypass levels you've already proven you can finish, but they remain uncleared as a reminder of your failure and a tantalizing opportunity to power up (regenerated items often remain locked away behind these levels). SMW just dumps you back to the last save point and requires you to beat a castle, mini-fortress, or ghost house in order to save (they changed this in later versions). Heck, the manual out-right says that you can't even re-enter a defeated castle or mini-fortress to save when you can by holding L + R. This intentional requirement also causes the life exchange window to awkwardly pop up on 2p which you have to dismiss to enter, which is another example of poor polish.
SMW2 took a different route entirely. It incentivized skill not by progression barriers and disparate save points, but by leveraging your natural instinct to react to a crying baby. You don't want to lose the baby and you want the baby back ASAP, even just to shut it up! Admit it: it works. When you lose Baby Mario, the player wants him back DESPERATELY. This panic was exactly what the designers wanted, and they nailed it.
Ironically, I probably love SMW more than the people defending it. I just don't think it was as important or significant as SMB3 and it sits one rung lower for good reasons. It had less polish and it showed in the final result.
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)
Switch blocks were actually introduced in SMB3, though persistent changes across all worlds was new to SMW, it was iterative.
This older version of my reply that I dug out of my notes app retreads some ground but has enough that I didn't work in above to warrant inclusion:
To discuss some of what's wrong with SMW, it's helpful to discuss some of what's wrong with later versions of Super Mario All*Stars. Remember how jarring it was that doors scroll against the background and lead seemingly nowhere? The NES version didn't do that. This was not an unavoidable issue with adding a parallax scrolling background because it's the easiest fix: just add a fixed background graphic around the door, like a stone wall or a structure. That's the same way modern games do it. SMW2 went even further!
Similarly, the SMB3 remaster almost seems to go out of its way to break the scrolling in the tank stage! The ground was designed to hide the auto-scrolling and make it appear like the tanks were moving while the screen was staying still. Even though it is night time in the level they felt you had to see the dirt in the remaster, so now you have dirt that scrolls under Mario's feet even when he's standing still. They animated the dirt moving to the right so that it doesn't scroll as fast, but that means they spent even more effort and still failed to fix it! Pretty sure they were only trying to increase the perceived speed of the tanks so it wouldn't be obviously too slow.
These kinds of things along with the other stuff I mentioned add up to what made SMW feel sloppy/lazy/rushed in comparison to the original SMB3.
Originally posted by: Brock Landers
Every RPG mentioned in these posts is awesome
See? I told you. Take 100 players, and you are lucky with 99 different opinions and one I don't know.
Originally posted by: Richardhead
I'm confused, are you people telling me there is other gaming consoles? Not just the NES?!?!
"I absolutely hate how there is no consequence to getting game over in the modern remakes of many classic games. In SMB3, much thought went into how progress past a certain point would be maintained even after a Game Over. There are strategically place locked doors and rerun paths that will allow you to bypass levels you've already proven you can finish, but they remain uncleared as a reminder of your failure and a tantalizing opportunity to power up (regenerated items often remain locked away behind these levels). SMW just dumps you back to the last save point and requires you to beat a castle, mini-fortress, or ghost house in order to save (they changed this in later versions). Heck, the manual out-right says that you can't even re-enter a defeated castle or mini-fortress to save when you can by holding L + R. This intentional requirement also causes the life exchange window to awkwardly pop up on 2p which you have to dismiss to enter, which is another example of poor polish."
I'm certainly not in the camp that would accuse EITHER game (SMB3 or SMW) as being difficult, overall.
There are definitely a few challenging levels in SMB3 that don't have a solidly challenging counterpart in SMW.
But the fact is, in SMB3, unless you are TERRIBLE at it, you have pretty much maxed out the life counter by the time you reach any of the hard areas, anyway.
So I don't necessarily agree with the comparative consequence (saves in SMW vs not in SMB3) to be of much relevance, once you have any level of competence at either game.
Bear in mind, your complaints about 2-player play aren't going to be universally shared.
I doubt I am in a minority that predominantly played these games in a single player mode, to where I simply haven't spent enough time in 2P mode to ever encounter the quirks.
CZroe, something about your reply is breaking my ability to quote it, so I'll just offer a brief reply here:
"I absolutely hate how there is no consequence to getting game over in the modern remakes of many classic games. In SMB3, much thought went into how progress past a certain point would be maintained even after a Game Over. There are strategically place[d] locked doors and rerun [return] paths that will allow you to bypass levels you've already proven you can finish, but they remain uncleared as a reminder of your failure and a tantalizing opportunity to power up (regenerated items often remain locked away behind these levels). SMW just dumps you back to the last save point and requires you to beat a castle, mini-fortress, or ghost house in order to save (they changed this in later versions). Heck, the manual out-right says that you can't even re-enter a defeated castle or mini-fortress to save when you can by holding L + R. This intentional requirement also causes the life exchange window to awkwardly pop up on 2p which you have to dismiss to enter, which is another example of poor polish."
I'm certainly not in the camp that would accuse EITHER game (SMB3 or SMW) as being difficult, overall.
There are definitely a few challenging levels in SMB3 that don't have a solidly challenging counterpart in SMW.
But the fact is, in SMB3, unless you are TERRIBLE at it, you have pretty much maxed out the life counter by the time you reach any of the hard areas, anyway.
So I don't necessarily agree with the comparative consequence (saves in SMW vs not in SMB3) to be of much relevance, once you have any level of competence at either game.
Bear in mind, your complaints about 2-player play aren't going to be universally shared.
I doubt I am in a minority that predominantly played these games in a single player mode, to where I simply haven't spent enough time in 2P mode to ever encounter the quirks.
Another cool thing about 2p in SMB3 was that a better player could alternately choose to play backwards to help clear the path for the player who got Game Over and continued. Because those levels were previously cleared by the other player, it also lets the player who missed them experience those levels. The other option (finishing the world or opening a locked door on the map to allow the other player to return) is the one players usually pick.
Bear in mind, your complaints about 2-player play aren't going to be universally shared.
I doubt I am in a minority that predominantly played these games in a single player mode, to where I simply haven't spent enough time in 2P mode to ever encounter the quirks.
Another cool thing about 2p in SMB3 was that a better player could alternately choose to play backwards to help clear the path for the player who got Game Over and continued. Because those levels were previously cleared by the other player, it also lets the other player experience something he/she missed. The other option (finishing the world or opening a locked door on the map to allow the other player to return) is the one player's usually pick.
As a pick-up-and-play 2P experience, I'll agree that you've made a good case for SMB3 as giving more 2P variety than SMW.
That just isn't how I had the bulk of my experience with those games, growing up.
Bear in mind, your complaints about 2-player play aren't going to be universally shared.
I doubt I am in a minority that predominantly played these games in a single player mode, to where I simply haven't spent enough time in 2P mode to ever encounter the quirks.
Another cool thing about 2p in SMB3 was that a better player could alternately choose to play backwards to help clear the path for the player who got Game Over and continued. Because those levels were previously cleared by the other player, it also lets the other player experience something he/she missed. The other option (finishing the world or opening a locked door on the map to allow the other player to return) is the one players usually pick.
As a pick-up-and-play 2P experience, I'll agree that you've made a good case for SMB3 as giving more 2P variety than SMW.
That just isn't how I had the bulk of my experience with those games, growing up.
Thanks to the SNES console's jack-sensing, Ichinisan and I were playing 2p even before we owned a 2nd controller! That's a point in SMW's corner even though they added it with SMA*S version of SMB3. Anyone know if the NES was even capable of this? I don't know of any 2p NES games that configured automatically for 2p alternating with one controller or prevented you from selecting the 2p option with only one controller inserted.
Bear in mind, your complaints about 2-player play aren't going to be universally shared.
I doubt I am in a minority that predominantly played these games in a single player mode, to where I simply haven't spent enough time in 2P mode to ever encounter the quirks.
Another cool thing about 2p in SMB3 was that a better player could alternately choose to play backwards to help clear the path for the player who got Game Over and continued. Because those levels were previously cleared by the other player, it also lets the other player experience something he/she missed. The other option (finishing the world or opening a locked door on the map to allow the other player to return) is the one players usually pick.
As a pick-up-and-play 2P experience, I'll agree that you've made a good case for SMB3 as giving more 2P variety than SMW.
That just isn't how I had the bulk of my experience with those games, growing up.
Thanks to the SNES console's jack-sensing, Ichinisan and I were playing 2p even before we owned a 2nd controller! That's a point in SMW's corner even though they added it with SMA*S version of SMB3. Anyone know if the NES was even capable of this? I don't know if any 2p games that did it.
I had no idea that the SNES could auto-detect a single controller for back-and-forth 2P use.
The only "controller swapping" I know of on the NES was saying a prayer and trying to hot-swap the controller without resetting the console
Bear in mind, your complaints about 2-player play aren't going to be universally shared.
I doubt I am in a minority that predominantly played these games in a single player mode, to where I simply haven't spent enough time in 2P mode to ever encounter the quirks.
Another cool thing about 2p in SMB3 was that a better player could alternately choose to play backwards to help clear the path for the player who got Game Over and continued. Because those levels were previously cleared by the other player, it also lets the other player experience something he/she missed. The other option (finishing the world or opening a locked door on the map to allow the other player to return) is the one players usually pick.
As a pick-up-and-play 2P experience, I'll agree that you've made a good case for SMB3 as giving more 2P variety than SMW.
That just isn't how I had the bulk of my experience with those games, growing up.
Thanks to the SNES console's jack-sensing, Ichinisan and I were playing 2p even before we owned a 2nd controller! That's a point in SMW's corner even though they added it with SMA*S version of SMB3. Anyone know if the NES was even capable of this? I don't know if any 2p games that did it.
I had no idea that the SNES could auto-detect a single controller for back-and-forth 2P use.
The only "controller swapping" I know of on the NES was saying a prayer and trying to hot-swap the controller without resetting the console
Yeah! SMB3 in SMA*S blocks the Mario Bros mini game and lets you alternate with one controller. There's even a buzz sound effect that plays when you try to pick "Battle Game" from the SMB3 SMA*S title screen.
IIRC, playing SMW 1p from the second controller port would play the entire game as Luigi, though the game calls him Mario at the end!
The only "controller swapping" I know of on the NES was saying a prayer and trying to hot-swap the controller without resetting the console
So many memories of frustration.
IIRC, playing SMW 1p from the second controller port would play the entire game as Luigi, though the game calls him Mario at the end!
yeah, but he was really only a palette swap of Mario in world. If you play all stars + world, he plays differently and I believe the name is fixed
IIRC, playing SMW 1p from the second controller port would play the entire game as Luigi, though the game calls him Mario at the end!
yeah, but he was really only a palette swap of Mario in world. If you play all stars + world, he plays differently and I believe the name is fixed
Well, there's also the L in the HUD and other places. Sure, the character itself is just a pallet swap in SMW (and many prior Mario games) but he's still just a sprite-swap in SMAS+SMW. IIRC, the first time he played differently in SMW was in Super Mario Advance 2: Super Mario World. I was so excited to play I imported a sealed copy before the US release and got burned by a counterfeit! They counterfeited the box, shrink warps, manual, and even the code embossed on the inner cardboard tray, but they couldn't even get the tri-wing screw!
IIRC, playing SMW 1p from the second controller port would play the entire game as Luigi, though the game calls him Mario at the end!
yeah, but he was really only a palette swap of Mario in world. If you play all stars + world, he plays differently and I believe the name is fixed
Well, there's also the L in the HUD and other places. Sure, the character itself is just a pallet swap in SMW (and many prior Mario games) but he's still just a sprite-swap in SMAS+SMW. IIRC, the first time he played differently in SMW was in Super Mario Advance 2: Super Mario World. I was so excited to play I imported a sealed copy before the US release and got burned by a counterfeit! They counterfeited the box, shrink warps, manual, and even the code embossed on the inner cardboard tray, but they couldn't even get the tri-wing screw!
No I'm almost positive Luigi plays differently in All-stars+world. Jumps higher and stuff. If I wasn't at work I'd test it out right now, but it works if you plug a controller into player 2
IIRC, playing SMW 1p from the second controller port would play the entire game as Luigi, though the game calls him Mario at the end!
yeah, but he was really only a palette swap of Mario in world. If you play all stars + world, he plays differently and I believe the name is fixed
Well, there's also the L in the HUD and other places. Sure, the character itself is just a pallet swap in SMW (and many prior Mario games) but he's still just a sprite-swap in SMAS+SMW. IIRC, the first time he played differently in SMW was in Super Mario Advance 2: Super Mario World. I was so excited to play I imported a sealed copy before the US release and got burned by a counterfeit! They counterfeited the box, shrink warps, manual, and even the code embossed on the inner cardboard tray, but they couldn't even get the tri-wing screw!
I'm almost positive Luigi plays differently in All-stars+world. Jumps higher and stuff. If I wasn't at work I'd test it out right now, but it works if you plug a controller into player 2
Barely had enough time but I checked on my lunch break:
https://imgur.com/a/TdpiB
Too late for me to reshoot that Luigi pic now that I've discovered how poorly it came out but it shows what it needs to show.
Luigi jumps and then puts his legs forward to butt-stomp for his falling frames where Mario's hat would lift from his head. It looks funny but plays exactly the same.
Got a display box too. Definitely loves me some SMW, even if I think it feels rushed and less-polished compared to SMB3. I'm not hatin'