Best of the NES

[Fryguy64]

Towards the end of last year, I wanted to put together a "Best of the NES" game list. But rather than my own Top 25 NES games, I gathered as many existing lists as I could find and threw them together with a scoring system to create a "definitive" list.

The problem was, I hadn't played half the games on it. So I decided I was going to beat them all (or die trying). As I've been recording the footage of my efforts, the idea to create a video review series came into mind. 25 episodes, each one critically examining the games on the list.

I didn't just want to know why they were good, or what problems they had... But whether or not they still stand up well today. And this is where you guys come in.

When I created the Super Paper Mario review last year, I was able to dive right in to writing the script thanks to the discussions we'd been having here when the game came out. Whether you agreed or disagreed with my utter hatred of that game didn't matter, the discussion of all the key points was helpful. I'd like to dive into a more critical discussion of the games on my list (but without giving too much away).

Rather than bombard you with all 25 at once, I'd like to do it in instalments.

Let's start with the Mario games. All three of the main series are in the Top 25 (no big surprises there).

Super Mario Bros.
Super Mario Bros. 2
Super Mario Bros. 3

What do you love about them? What do you hate? Do you think the gameplay stands up well today? If not, why not? Please go into as much detail as you can. If you disagree with someone's comments, please explain why you disagree.

Go team! ;D

[8bitretroshit]

NinDB Opinion Panel is go!

...I'll write a long poorly written opinion tomorrow when I have a little more time.

[Fryguy64]

Hooray! I'll get us started.

Super Mario Bros.

For me, this is the perfectly balanced, quintessential retro game. Everything is introduced slowly, then as the game progresses, various combinations of enemies and obstacles are combined in increasingly complicated ways. The final world is just the ultimate test of everything that has come before.

It constantly drives you forward, not just literally with the no-going-backwards rule, but also in the way it encourages you to push forward and try different things. There's secrets and rewards for trying just about everything.

It was brilliant back then, and it's still incredibly playable now. Even though I can more or less beat it with muscle memory these days.

Super Mario Bros. 2

I'd never noticed, but this game (more than most 2D Mario games) lets the stage theme determine the kinds of obstacles and enemies that will appear. It's not just blocks arranged on a sandy background. Hell, I don't think even the New SMB games do this as effectively.

While I love this game, I find the climbing controls particularly awkward, and I honestly don't know what the point of the Super Jump move is. Also, finding the Mushrooms is great and all, but it's a shame they have no effect past the end of the level, especially given how hard some of them are to find.

I actually love this game. Am I the only person who chooses Toad more than the other characters?

Super Mario Bros. 3

Now while I love Mario 3 for being fun, colourful and imaginative, I have one big gripe. It's super easy. And that's almost entirely down to the Raccoon Tail. While recording the footage for the review, I noticed that many of the stages have clearly been designed to be challenging when platforming normally... But are almost forgettable when you can just waggle your tail to get over them. It's (as the kids say) O.P. I also noted that the levels many people highlight as the hardest are those that have been specifically created to challenge Raccoon Mario. Coincidence?

I can't actually remember how Boom Boom moves. He's so easy to kill, he's never made it more than a couple of steps before I beat him... Pretty much the same deal with the Koopalings. The bosses are pretty disappointing.

Regardless, it's solid, fun and has some brilliant ideas. Giant Land being a highlight. I also love how the game expanded on familiar Mario enemies with a load of variations, and brought in a load of now-cherished new baddies. And one that induces genuine fear into me: Big Bertha! Or Boss Bass, whatever...

A great game for its time, but I just don't think it lives up to its reputation. I don't think anything can live up to THAT reputation! Except Yoshi's Island, of course ;D

[nocturnal YL]

I'm big on writing about games, but with such old and over-covered games, I don't know if it really helps to write even more about them.

But anyway, let me review those games using today's standards.

Super Mario Bros.

It sure was a great, innovative game at that time. If I treat it as a modern game, though, a few things show up.

First of all, there's the physics. Most hop-and-bop games feature highly maneuverable characters that you can control their movement easily. In particular, you can control them easily mid-air. SMB1 did not allow that - midair directional control is limited, and that makes the game too difficult under today's standards. It's not that difficult games are not allowed these days (look at where Yoshi and DK are heading to), but difficulty due to limited control is less acceptable than difficulty by level design.

And then there's the music. I feel that the BGM is too monotonic - the underground and castle themes are offenders in this case. This problem is common to many early NES games (Zelda 1 comes to mind), which they solve by either having no BGM or not making them as loud as the sound effects.

Super Mario Bros. 2 / Super Mario USA (JP)

The physics are actually more acceptable than in SMB1. Peach's floatng and Luigi's jumping makes moving around much easier, and the Super Jump really helps in speedrunning or climbing clouds.

And the music is pretty good too. It also throws in a load of exploration elements While this is not standard fare Mario, it does a great job in making the game more replayable if not for the fact that you can't save or select which stage to play.

The graphics aren't good, though. For one thing, the player characters shrink when they have one hit left, yet they still count as being two blocks tall for all purposes. At this point, SMB1~3 players should be used to Mairo's property that he's half as tall as small Mario - and that does appear so in SMB2U. It doesn't doesn't actually works like that. This is a very horrible case of on-screen graphics not matching the game mechanics, and it makes the already difficult game much more frustrating. It makes me, as a player, feel betrayed.

Super Mario Bros. 3

Ah, the first modern Mario. It does a great job in being a decent Mario, even in today's standard. That's thanks to the fact that today's Mario doesn't really change that much. Most things about it is just great. It plays like a modern Mario game, and it features what you expect from Mario (a bunch of powerups, world themes, and even a limited competitive multiplayer mode). It's also a bit challenging if you aim to find those elusive advanced powerups.

Even this doesn't stand to today's standard, though for the reasons below.

Common gripes

All three games did a horrible job at saving. When you get a game over, you have to start with the world's beginning, where you have only 4 or 5 lives. And the worst thing of them all is that it does not save at all. Once you turn the games off, that's it. You'll have to begin from world 1. And two of these games were conceived after Famicom DS came out. IMO, anything that came out after Zelda 1 that can't save is outright unacceptable.

You also can't play levels that you have beaten. This is a very standard feature in platformers, and I'd say adventure games and RPGs should learn from it. Nor can you switch between single- and multiplayer in game. So basically, all those standard features found in modern platformers are missing, and that really hampers the usability of those games. Of course, those ideas didn't exist when those games are made; but I'm reviewing them using modern standards.

[Fryguy64]

I'm big on writing about games, but with such old and over-covered games, I don't know if it really helps to write even more about them.

This is one reason I want to say why they were good, and if they stand up. You wait until we get to Zelda and Metroid! We're gonna have a field day XD

Strangely, it's hard to find anything critical of Mario 3, even though it's incredibly easy.

For one thing, the player characters shrink when they have one hit left, yet they still count as being two blocks tall for all purposes.

I also made a note of this as a weird design choice that doesn't work. It still catches me out sometimes, particularly with low-flying enemies. I don't think I'd ever noticed, for a game as fleshed out as SMB2, just how much of the basic mechanics were hobbled together (obviously the hitbox thing is a throwback to Dokidoki Panic, which I've gone into with the same excruciating detail as on the site).

Of course, those ideas didn't exist when those games are made; but I'm reviewing them using modern standards.

I'm giving the games some freedom here, I will note if certain things didn't exist at the time, or if it was riffing on its contemporaries... I will probably also take asides to bitch about modern games, as making games easier doesn't necessarily mean they're better. Hell, we were kids when games weren't as forgiving, and we turned out OK! I think...

[The Qu]

Super Mario Bros.
Super Mario Bros. is a game I find a bit difficult to critique, because frankly, I don't like it. But it's not because it's a bad game. It's because its sort of ascended to being more than a game; it's an archetype. The latter games, in my opinion, do everything it does much better. But SMB came first.

It's a similar problem to the first Final Fantasy or the first Dragon Quest. You can even extend it to games like Metroid and Maniac Mansion. It doesn't mean their bad games. Just that they have bear the brunt of the growing pains of their respective genre.

Still, for what it is, SMB is a magnificent game. It has a fully realized formula that was groundbreaking for the era, it has one of the best control schemes of NES era, it's music and graphics are perfect. The only complaint I have is that the physics are somewhat clunky, enough so that I find it a bit hard to play. My first Mario game was SMW, and its physics are pretty drilled into my head.

[Fryguy64]

OK, comments are coming slowly but surely, so I will also drop in the next three to comment on. Again, these are all ones I've played recently and recorded and even started writing my opinions on.

Share any and all opinions, even if you're put off from playing them for a particular reason. It's all good.

The Legend of Zelda
Zelda II: The Adventure of Link
Metroid

My comments (abbreviated):

The Legend of Zelda
If you go in without a guide, this game is just old school design. Cryptic puzzles, blind exploration, and somewhat stiff controls. It was advancing the kind of PC adventures that were popular at the time and presented this huge, crafted world. Some of the action still stands up, but the bosses are mostly a let down. A great game in its time, but it has not aged particularly well.

Zelda II: The Adventure of Link
The first 1/4 of this game is total bullshit. It changed so much about the gameplay and does absolutely nothing to ease you into it. Plus the game's hardest challenge comes immediately after the first Palace. However, once you get through it... The rest of the game is a much straighter shot. You're given more freedom with the Life Spell and the Downthrust sword technique, and the towns of NPCs make this vast continental mass feel like a busy, bustling world. It still suffers from cryptic puzzles, but a lot of the solutions are in the game, or you're clued in by the visuals. It's actually not bad. It feels like a proper stepping stone to the later Zelda games.

Metroid
Most people I spoke to about this suggested they loved the game for its huge, mysterious world to explore. They went in without a map and didn't care about beating it. I don't play games like that, and I found... a game I did not enjoy. You have to try everything on everything, a death or restart means up to 30 minutes of grinding for health, enemies that are just cannon fodder and never get too hard, disappointing bosses... And if you grab a map to avoid aimless wandering, it's just too easy. I don't like the first Metroid. Everything introduced in Metroid 2 and Super Metroid fixed this. I think Metroid is simply piggy-backing on its successors, and is in no way a game I would recommend.

[nocturnal YL]

I didn't finish any of these, and I didn't even really try Zelda 1. I'll review based on more external factors (look and feel, overall structure...) because of that.

The Legend of Zelda

...I guess I didn't play enough Zelda 1 to really comment. It does feel repetitive, and the uniform-looking level design doesn't help. And for some reason, the inhabitants are scattered around everywhere, never got to be seen together. That doesn't feel like an action adventure game.

Also, hey, look! There's an Elimination Mode! Is it some sort of side game mode like Shadow Battle in FSA? ....Oh, crap.

Plus side: I do feel like defending the whole puzzle difficulty thing. Awful Engrish making text-based hints unuseful notwithstanding, I think later 2D Zelda games do not necessarily provide enough hints to get rid of trial-and-error secret uncovering. 15 years later in FSA, players still had to uncover certain things by brute force. I don't know how did even later 2D Zelda did, but Zelda 1's puzzles aren't particularly unforgiving (judging from gameplay videos I've seen).

Zelda II: The Adventure of Link

Unlike the first game, this one has made better use of towns. You can heal and rest and gather information in those towns (or get killed by Ganon's spies), and that's a good step to improve from the first game. It also features some great music that I like better than most NES games.

My biggest complaint would be its difficulty and levelling system. Even if you level grind early on, you're still very likely to get killed in the wild. You'll get to meet enemies who can chip off a whole block of your health before you even reach the 2nd palace, and level grinding means you can take an extra hit. It's not particularly helpful, and you'd still have to spend hours just to get there. And you can't summon the level up menu any time, either. If you decide to miss a level up of a low-level stat, you can't go back and level it up again. Instead, you'll have to wait until the next level up, which may be thousands of experience points away. Most ARPGs just don't work that way.

Metroid

Like Zelda 1 above, it feels empty. I'm not much of a Metroid player, but I can say I prefer the ones that are not so visually silent. It's worse than Zelda 1, which at least has some sparse NPCs and lots of enemies.

As someone who's not into Metroid, I do appreciate its apparent simplicity. I'm probably less likely to get stuck if I decide to seriously play it. (I did really get stuck in Prime 3. I guess maybe a video guide will help, but at this time I'm not interested anymore.)

[Wildcat]

Hey, this is something I can contribute to. Sparingly. When time allows. School is kicking my ass. XD

For now, I'll post some older work of mine to give you some ideas, Fry, and when I get some free time or just want to branch off from writing papers I'll refine them.

Super Mario Bros.
I’ve played it many times since my first experience with it back in 1987, but it remains a fantastic testament to the power of gaming. It’s a beautifully designed game, with tons of secrets, varying foes to figure out how to best conquer, and some of the tightest, most responsive controls of the era. It was a landmark to end all landmarks. Not many games would be able to replicate the joys of Super Mario Bros. in the early goings of the console, and it exceeds the majority of the games the system saw throughout its life. The melodies that Koji Kondo created have enshrined themselves into memory, being able to be summoned in a hum instantly. The graphics, while rudimentary now, were lengths ahead of many of the games I had played before it. And the challenge level was just about perfect. Super Mario Bros. isn’t a cakewalk. It requires dedication, practice and some perseverance to achieve the game’s final moments. It’s totally worth it, though.

Super Mario Bros. 2
Super Mario Bros. 2 was the first game I made my own purchase of. I remember it like it was yesterday (a testament to how much gaming means to me; one of my most vibrant memories of my youth is buying a video game for the first time XD ). My mom took me to the local Sears catalog store, where she had pre-ordered the game for me. I walked past washing machines, refrigerators, and other appliances to make it to the front counter. I stood there while my mom chatted with the sales clerk, who eventually went into the back and brought out the sealed copy of SMB2. I gave my mom the money, and the purchase was made. I held it close like it was a small frail child, afraid I would drop this cherished gift into some sort of black hole and never regain it. Once we returned home, I put the fresh cartridge into the NES, and the title screen greeted me, with an amazing introductory tune. Next thing I knew, I was presented with the choice of four characters. Mario, Luigi, Princess Toadstool and Toad all had different strengths and weaknesses, but I had no idea how they handled differently at the time. I likely picked Mario to begin. Suddenly I’m falling; that’s odd! What should I do? Is there some sort of secret maneuver I need to perform in order to save myself? Damn, this just started and I’m already sucking!

Ultimately, this was likely the first game I truly beat. I tended to get stuck in 8-1 in SMB, finding the challenge a little more than I could handle. Figuring out how to defeat each boss was fascinating (especially Wart, who took a more sophisticated method to conquer), and the feeling of accomplishment was wonderful. It may not have begun its life as a Mario game, but somehow, someway, it became one that worked.

Super Mario Bros. 3
Super Mario Bros. 3 is a sequel done right. It took everything the original game did and managed to improve everything about it. The game’s larger, has more things for Mario to do, more power-ups that did awesome stuff, tons of new enemies and bosses to conquer, more levels than before, and continued the earlier game’s tradition of secrecy, rewarding explorers with hidden rooms, items and alternative routes through the new hub worlds. With eight huge, diverse worlds to wander through, Super Mario 3 was a treasure trove to gamers. Its power-ups, enemies and gameplay improvements were remarkable, and the overall game felt polished and perfect. Any 2D Mario has had to fight off comparisons to this giant of gaming, but it’s a reputation that has been well earned. It’s my second favorite in the series, and is a heap of fun. That’s all I could hope for.

Metroid
Metroid’s origins are among the more dynamic in the NES days, with a massive open-ended world to have Samus explore in order to meet her goals. As she delves into the various tunnels, caverns and crevasses hunting for power-ups to boost her energy, missile count and abilities, she is on constant watch for the Zebes fauna that are none too pleased to have her there. These beasts come in plenty of variety, from ceiling dwellers who dive at Samus, a never-ending swarm of defenders of a hive, to the titular Metroids that lurk in Tourain.

The entire world of Zebes held an aura of awe to any player, I think. It was such a shock to be able to wander around relatively aimlessly, trying to figure out what to do and where to go; to be honest, Metroid’s non-linearity is almost its curse here, as the game is so enormous that it’s easy to get confused as one explores. On top of its mass, it’s very easy to get frustrated with how health is replenished. When you start, no matter how far you got before via password, you’ll be saddled with a default of 30 health points. That will not get you too far. To heal, you’ll need to grind for a while to get it up to a respectable level, and it gets pretty old pretty quick.

Despite these nitpicks, and ignoring the future games that refined the concepts presented here for a moment, Metroid is an amazing piece of software ahead of its time. It’s worth diving into at least once to appreciate how radical it was back in 1986, and even though the later games improved immensely on the design, it still deserves recognition. Out of the games I’ve played (which is most of them to some extent; Other M is the only one I’ve not touched, although it’s been eons since I played Metroid II), I’d put Metroid’s first title right in the middle of the franchise’s highs and lows. It does a lot right, but the aforementioned bloated world with little direction, plus the repetitive energy rebuilding any time you start, really do hurt it for me. Despite that, it’s a good starting point, and it’ll help you appreciate later games in the series more.

Legend of Zelda
The Legend of Zelda is to this day one of my favorite gaming experiences. The incredibly huge world for its time was perfectly sized, packed with so many tricks and hidden passages that a plucky gamer could spend hours randomly bombing walls, flaming bushes, or pushing rocks to uncover them all…if they had the right tools to do such a thing, that is. Shops supply some items to Link, but the majority of the nifty gizmos Link can use are locked up tight within the game’s nine dungeons. While they are not as puzzle-heavy as later games in the series, the balance between action and exploration is perfect. With a variety of enemy types to deal with, including such legends as Wall Masters, Like Likes, Dodongos and Gohmas, the combat is gratifying and diverse. The boss fights are as engaging as the NES could probably handle, and after defeating Ganon and rescuing Princess Zelda, a second quest appears, offering a more difficult trek through a remapped, retooled Hyrule. The enemies are tougher, the dungeons relocated and punishing, and served as a perfect reward for gamers who hungered for more.

I remember very well burning the first bush that led to a secret stairwell, untangling the chaotic Lost Woods maze to end up in the graveyard, inadvertently stumbling into the waterfall to find a hidden cave, discovering that Athos statues can come to life if you touch them, using the Whistle to drain the entrance to a cleverly disguised dungeon, riding the raft, fighting the seemingly invincible Digdogger (figuring out that the whistle was needed to greatly weaken him was a pleasant untangling of the game’s occasionally obtuse hint system in my younger days), feeding bombs to Dodongo, being grabbed by a Wall Master, fuming after a Like Like swiped my Blue Ring and Magic Shield by my clumsy mistake…in short, this game is packed full of memorable moments that imprinted themselves to my gaming meddle. This is exactly what games are supposed to do! This concept, born from Shigeru Miyamoto’s early childhood wandering the Japanese countryside, has left its mark again and again on countless gamers all over the world.

Zelda II: The Adventures of Link
God, I've ranted about this a lot on this forumalready, but this is a decent synopsis:
I consider Zelda II to be one of the largest disappointments in all of gaming. It’s a landmark of how NOT to design a sequel to a best selling game. To me, the Zelda series works best when I can observe a ton of the playfield (which both the 2D overhead and the 3D behind the back views offer), one that lets me see what’s coming up and react accordingly with Link’s assortment of weapons and magic. It also gives me some repose, offering me time to think things through more clearly and to enjoy the environments I’m running around in. Zelda II doesn’t work that way. By switching to a side scrolling format, you lose that essence of knowing what’s going on. Enemies will bombard you from the side randomly, and Link lacks many of the skills and weaponry he usually carries to fight them off. There’s also no break from enemy encounters, so the game works in a completely different fashion. On top of that, Link’s painfully short attack range, slippery controls and some mediocre level design add up to a major headache for me. I would never consider this one of the NES greats over other titles that are much more deserving the honor.

Will revise when I can Fry; looking forward to the videos!

[Leon]

I never had an NES growing up, so I can only give my opinions as someone who played them after playing their more modern sequels.

SMB: Super Mario Bros is a game that is so basic, it cannot possibly age badly. I mean that in a good way. I look at it kind of like Pong or Pac Man, yes it is basic, but even after 25+ years, the game is still as playable today as it was back then.

SMB2: This game is my favorite Mario game for the NES. I loved being able to play as Peach and Luigi. The change of scenery from the Mushroom Kingdom is also nice for a change. Also, I thank it for giving us Birdo to enjoy in future Mario games.

SMB3: This game is a true evolution of the SMB formula. However, like Fry I also hate the way that Raccoon Suit ended up being a huge cheat card. The sprites are also very charming for a NES game.

Zelda: I think the original game is ok, but I would not say it's a must play. I think the game is too vague for its own good, and you might as well just skip to ALttP.

Zelda II: This game is beyond my skills. Even after spending some time grinding, I cannot get very far in it. However, I can recognize that it was very influential to the growth of the series.

Metroid: The only reason someone should play this game nowadays is if they are either a huge Metroid fan or a retro gaming enthusiast. Zero Mission makes this game playable to a modern audience, but like Kid Icarus, the original does not age well.

[Fryguy64]

For anyone who did play Zelda and Metroid back before GameFAQs, how exactly did you work out what to do? I played both of them for a short time, but I never knew how to progress and just gave up until more recently.

I've also decided to just catch you up on the other games I've beaten and recorded thus far, then we're all caught up with the games I'm trying to play now (none of which I have beaten before, with one exception).

The rest of the list so far is:

Castlevania
DuckTales
Kirby's Adventure
Mega Man 2
Mega Man 3

And now for my breakdown.

Castlevania
I only had the second game as a kid, and my efforts to beat the first in more recent years have been exhausting. I always ended up quitting after passing a particularly gruelling sequence, dying and having to do the whole thing over.

However, now with my completed playthrough, I see that all of those deaths pay off - you do get better, and as such end up breezing through the bits you've beaten in order to face the challenges up ahead.

I must admit, when I finally took out Dracula, I felt more fucking triumphant than I have beating a game for a very long time. Not bad for an 8-bit game in 2013. I found the game hard, but hardly ever unfair, and the challenge felt rewarding and awesome.

DuckTales
I suspect the only reason anyone remembers DuckTales is because of the music. The game is good, don't get me wrong, but it's also easy and incredibly short. The lack of continues and so forth is a little jarring. But THAT music! It kept the game alive in everyone's minds into the present, and as such it landed on this list.

It's a fun game, well made, with a nice variety in the level design. Lots of secrets and exploits that the developers seem to have accounted for. It's also extremely accessible for younger players. Which makes sense.

Kirby's Adventure
I always forget how hard Kirby's Adventure is. It starts nice and easy, introducing you to all the moves and abilities, but it quite quickly ramps up the challenge. And it's filled with so many secrets! It's just colourful, fun, controls well and it probably one of the more "modern" platformers on NES.

I can never beat the damn egg-tossing game though. And age has dulled my capacity for beating the shoot-out game. Boo!

The bosses are all pretty cool and original, the stage layouts get pretty crowded and insane later on, and it's an absolute pig trying to find all of the switches! But I actually 100%ed this game, unlike the others where I just played to the end. And that damn Meta Knight battle on Hard Mode... I've never cried so hard at something so cute before...

Mega Man 2
I love Mega Man, and I love this game. It has simple, fun controls and simple fun levels that challenge them. The weapons are fun to use (everyone loves Metal Blade!) There are a few moments in Wily's Castle that aren't really fair, like the boss that can only be beaten with one weapon.

But overall, it's a concise, fun game that has a great challenge and improves on the first Mega Man in almost every way.

Mega Man 3
I have seen so many arguments over whether Mega Man 2 or 3 is better. Yes, Mega Man 3 is longer, it introduced Rush and Proto Man, and all that guff. The Robot Masters are still great, but after them you get four Doc Robot levels. In these you have to fight a Doc Robot mimicking two Robot Masters from MM2. Their levels are hard, require you to blow your load on items, and I found them to just lack the same kind of care and attention as the main levels.

On top of this, by the time I beat the game, I was relieved. The Dr. Wily levels weren't anywhere near as hard as Doc Robot, so I just breezed through the end. I just didn't have as much fun playing it as I did MM2, and I feel that's simply because it went on too long and lacked the same level of balance.

Controversial, but that's where I stand. MM2 is better because it has focus and the difficulty level is a progression. MM3 spikes in the middle and then drops off towards the end, and I feel that lets it down.

-----------------------------------------

Remember, you can comment on any game mention so far - whether it's your favourite game ever, or you've never wanted to play it. Your reasons for either will be invaluable.

Next on my list to play is Crystalis, which I have never played before (it never came out in Europe, nor did the GBC remake, and it ain't on Virtual Console).

[nocturnal YL]

Never played most of those. I didn't touch many NES titles, unlike SNES and N64.

Kirby's Adventure

Easily my favourite game on the NES. It's modern compared to most other NES games, and one reason I liked it so much is that it is relatively technically advanced for an NES game - kind of like those SunSoft titles. It has everything a modern Kirby should have (although the control is a bit sloppy), and that makes it good even in modern standards.

I also like how the game showed off some pseudo-3D effects. (I'm a fan of seeing a system's graphical capabilities pushed to the limit. I wonder if te NES can pull an Iridium 3D...) Its audio is good too, although the sound effects do get in the way and kill off a few BGM tracks sometimes.

It's difficult for a Kirby game, but it's still a Kirby game. This should be one of the easiest and least frustrating games I've seen on the NES. I'm not saying whether this is good or bad - I don't think (actual) difficulty should affect a game's rating, unless it's an unusual rise in difficulty - oh wait, this game has one. Kirby has to use Sword - the worst ability due to its range - to fight Meta Knight. Ouch. I'm fine with a game throwing hundreds of projectiles at me as in Nazo no Murasamejou - as long as it's the norm of the game rather than some sudden, one-time difficulty rise. Still, it's not that bad.

Gripe time: The Hard Mode bug bugs me (pun intended). Once I unlock Hard Mode, I cannot play Normal's final boss again because that will erase my Hard Mode save. This is one very startling bug, and one that should really be fixed. It never was; together with Super Star's bug that erases the save file (which even made it to the Japanese gaming community as an infamous Internet meme), Kirby's Adventure's save reset bug is seen in VC and Dream Collection. Ouuuuch.

[Nester the Lark]

Apr 27, 2013 12:29:14 GMT -5 Fryguy64 said:

For anyone who did play Zelda and Metroid back before GameFAQs, how exactly did you work out what to do? I played both of them for a short time, but I never knew how to progress and just gave up until more recently.

When I got my NES in 1988 (has it been 25 years?), it came with the "big black book" (aka, The Official Nintendo Player's Guide), which had maps and secrets for a lot of early NES games (altho it wasn't comprehensive). I'll be honest, I used it extensively for any game I played that it covered. I don't think players had the egos they do now about wanting to do everything themselves. Games back then were brutal, and any help was welcomed.

The first game I remember specifically wanting to finish myself without help was Zelda: A Link to the Past, and that's about the time that games were really becoming more user friendly.

[Fryguy64]

There did seem to be a big leap in the 16-bit era to remove anything that couldn't be done without the help of the game. There's still some stuff that guides and manuals come in handy for (many RPGs have so many mechanics that it's usually down to guides to explain them), but it doesn't usually impact on whether you can beat the game - just how good your strategy for beating it will be.

I suspected most people used Nintendo Power or the like. I had a Super Mario Bros. guide book for SMB 1-3 (all text! Those were the days!) and I did have friends who had drawn maps to Metroid and Zelda before finally collecting magazines with the guides and such.

I think this has been a change for the better, but then I also broke down gamers into several categories in one of my game write-ups (Metroid, I think)...

1. Gamers who find escapism in becoming a part of a game's fiction. They are happy to play a fleshed out character in an interesting world, and the game's goals kind of take a back seat.

2. Gamers who find escapism by becoming the hero of a game's world. The challenges and goals are how they do this, and a fleshed out hero and game world can, if anything, be a distraction.

The second is clearly driven more by ego, and that's where I sit. I have fun beating the challenges, reaching the goal and knowing I did it. Having to rely on guides kinda takes that away to some degree. However, relying on guides wouldn't hurt the first set so much, but then nor would their absence.

Then you have games today, where almost everything is spelled out for you whether you want it or not. Zelda 1 relied too much on puzzles that couldn't be worked out without help, while Skyward Sword barely gave you a chance to work them out at all before telling you what to do.

Games today aren't easier than they used to be. Part of it is some of us just got good at games and need harder challenges, and constant prompts in-game are annoying. While the first set of gamers have much more lush and vibrant worlds to explore, but the game is constantly telling them to follow a particular path.

In-game hints have gone too far the other way. Not for every game, of course, but when I see a solid, challenging game like Donkey Kong Country Returns get an "Easy Mode" and loads of extra items to help out, I despair! Beating it was hard, but it was never impossible.

Don't get me wrong, it's OK to like a lovely world if you're all about the challenge, or indeed enjoy the game if you're all about the world. But it's more about where your priorities lie. Do you jab your finger on every button to skip through cutscenes? You're probably in Group 2.

[nocturnal YL]

I'm obviously a type 1. I usually enjoy story-driven games more, even though I tend to give storyless games better ratings because they have one less thing that can potentially be imperfect.

I never had a chance to play Zelda or Metroid before online guides, also I did complete some easier adventure games without an intention to look for those. Given how Four Swords Adventures just worked me out a day ago, and the fact that I just left Prime 3 and Star Fox Adventures unfinished, it's likely that I wouldn't have finished the NES Zelda 1 and Metroid anyway. Exploration games just aren't my thing.

Early 1990s was when games started to become more user-friendly (there are excepitons - I won't call the 1997 Star Fox 64 or any Virtual Boy title user-friendly, but generally this holds). You can save, some games started to have tutorials (although they aren't really prominent until late N64/late SFC NP), and even the game physics seemed to be better with the characters being more controllable. Games didn't become easier in terms of raw difficulty (as the result of level design), but other factors made it so that the earliest games seem more difficult.