Support NeoGAF

[Stopdoor]

What do you find so hard about Zelda 2? What enemies are you having trouble with? I don't put it up there with games like Ghosts N Goblins and Ninja Gaiden for difficulty. The only really hard parts I can remember are Death Mountain and the last palace.

Maybe I haven't given it a fair shot, but the enemies require such precision that it feels like a chore even if I could perfect a strategy. The Iron Knuckles (?), the Axe Throwing Enemies, the Boomerang Throwing ones, the Skeletons - they seem to rely on tiny precise hitboxes while you certainly aren't so hard to hit. The game seems to expect me to do split-second shield positioning based on tiny information, which is fine for a boss or something but quickly feels like it would be a hassle even if I really dedicated myself to it?

Then you get slow-moving but tedious to handle enemies like the fireball spewing heads and it just cements itself - it tolerates only very little mistakes.

The level-up system isn't even for feeling powerful, it's to keep up with the crap the game keeps throwing at you non-stop.

 

[Htown]

Super Mario Bros is one of those games that doesn't feel special anymore because it's so influential. So much has built off of it that it just feels like a primitive platformer.

 

[Lothar]

Meanwhile, in Zelda 2 I take a ton of damage even in the early levels. Iron Knuckles don't give you a lot of time to react, you're sometimes pelted by enemies and rocks in both directions, and you don't have a gigantic health bar.

Ah, do you know the trick to killing the Iron Knuckles? Just jump and stab them in the head.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fN0wKAQgQ9Y

They're as easy as a goomba.

 

[Glowsquid]

This has always been my theory too, considering it was made by the "dream team"

In discussions of SMB 2, it's frequently said that it had more involvement from the "core SMB developers" than the Japanese SMB2 (aka: Lost Levels), but from what I've been able to determine, that's not true at all. Doki Doki Panic was directed by new employees Kensuke Tanabe and Hideki Konno (I think it was the first game for both of them?), with the only developers it shared with SMB being Miyamoto (as a producer) and Koji Kondo.

There's no reliable staff listing for Lost Levels anywhere on the English internet, but in this video, Miyamoto talks about they got the idea for Lost Levels after making new levels for Vs. Super Mario Bros., which would indicate to me he was more involved in that game.

 

[Morfeo]

Doki Doki Panic was a game made for a festival. It wasn't meant to be a full release. It was made by Miyamoto and his team for a specific event. Since they owned the code they were able to just repurpose it when the time came to give the world outsite Japan a new SMB game. Had Doki not existed, who knows what we'd have gotten. Japan seemed set on not giving us SMB2j because of its difficulty. It's possible the US and everyone else may not have gotten anything at all until 1990 when SMB3 came out.

Also it did get a rerelease in Japan on cartridge. So it got one. Either way I wouldn't want to play Doki Doki when SMB2 USA exists. It's just that much better.

This isnt entirely true, Nintendo worked on that game for a long ass time, and there is no doubt that it was designed to be the next big thing when you see who worked on it and the time they spent on it. If it was designed as a Mario-game or not, we dont know, but I am 100% it did not start production with those Fuji-characters.

 

[Manmademan]

How in the hell you never owned a Nintendo system before?

nintendo hasn't been relevant since the SNES died.

 

[Stopdoor]

Ah, do you know the trick to killing the Iron Knuckles? Just jump and stab them in the head.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fN0wKAQgQ9Y

They're as easy as a goomba.

I've learned this on my own, but it still requires good timing, you have to do it multiple times in a row, and you're not always thrown in perfect situations for it. Then the game throws the ones who shoot lightning at you while doing this at the same time, and well...

Like maybe it wouldn't feel so bad if you could pick up health during the game, the Life spell is alright but it makes me wonder how much better the game would feel if you didn't feel so pressured to maintain Life so perfectly all the time.

 

[Morfeo]

You know, I agree with some points about save states, but I'm playing Zelda II recently and to be honest it kicks my butt so hard I still feel enough challenge fighting the unrelenting enemies and judging whether making a save state at this point in the dungeon is a good idea or not, strategically balancing 'game overs' to line up with leveling up. It's still satisfying and challenging, but not in an insane way that I'd literally just never have time to deal with.

Can I ask how you play it? And what your troubles are? I think the difficulty of this game is waay overblown, and a game like Mega Man 1 (which you listed as having beaten) is much, much harder. Maybe you are playing on a set with tons of input lag? These consoles tend to get that on modern tvs.

 

[Stopdoor]

Can I ask how you play it? And what your troubles are? I think the difficulty of this game is waay overblown, and a game like Mega Man 1 (which you listed as having beaten) is much, much harder. Maybe you are playing on a set with tons of input lag? These consoles tend to get that on modern tvs.

3DS. I've put a bit of info above.

A game like Mega Man at least lets you refill health (more easily) if you make mistakes. MM1 was pretty tough, but ultimately only the final stages are a real challenge, while Zelda II is a pretty long game.

 

[Morfeo]

In discussions of SMB 2, it's frequently said that it had more involvement from the "core SMB developers" than the Japanese SMB2 (aka: Lost Levels), but from what I've been able to determine, that's not true at all. Doki Doki Panic was directed by new employees Kensuke Tanabe and Hideki Konno (I think it was the first game for both of them?), with the only developers it shared with SMB being Miyamoto (as a producer) and Koji Kondo.

There's no reliable staff listing for Lost Levels anywhere on the English internet, but in this video, Miyamoto talks about they got the idea for Lost Levels after making new levels for Vs. Super Mario Bros., which would indicate to me he was more involved in that game.

There is no doubt that Miyamoto was more involved with SMB2, i think he even once said that the reason it was so hard was because he was in a terrible mood at the time. Which of course was joking, but shows that he had a hand in designing it. You are right that Konno and Tanabe was the main designers at the beginning at Doki Doki Panic, but the official story goes that they wanted to make it a vertical plattformer, and that it was Miyamoto/Tezuka that reoriented it towards the more standard horizontal plattformer because the Konno/Tanabe-prototype simply wasnt much fun. But yeah, who knows at this point. I do think its clear that it was intended as the "next big thing" from them though, and as such was not intended to stay buried as a Fujitv-game.

 

[Lothar]

I've learned this on my own, but it still requires good timing, you have to do it multiple times in a row, and you're not always thrown in perfect situations for it. Then the game throws the ones who shoot lightning at you while doing this at the same time, and well...

Like maybe it wouldn't feel so bad if you could pick up health during the game, the Life spell is alright but it makes me wonder how much better the game would feel if you didn't feel so pressured to maintain Life so perfectly all the time.

I land the attack every time on the iron knuckles just by hitting them on the head on the way down from a jump. I always see them as a very temporary obstacle. Nothing like the nightmare that is the birds on Ninja Gaiden or Medusa Heads on Castlevania.

Even the ones that shoot lightning, I believe they won't shoot it when they're being attacked.

 

[Morfeo]

nintendo hasn't been relevant since the SNES died.

lol.

 

[FSLink]

To be fair, when saying "master" a game, we're not talking about memorizing frame data or keeping spreadsheets on complicated mechanics. Most NES games are mechanically simple as there was only a couple buttons and a D-pad.

What we're saying is don't automatically fall back on save states to brute force these games. You'll be left underwhelmed if you treat them as content tourism. Don't spend too much of your limited time if it's not clicking for a particular game. But most of these games don't take much time to get proficient with because they're mechanically simple.

IOW, it's better to play 4 worlds of SMB without save states than it is to use save states to see the end. It's the journey, not the destination.

Edit: you have a lot of good suggestions in this thread. I'd again go back to my 3 recommendations along with the beginner's advice I posted for each: Duck Tales, Mega Man 2, and Contra. Easy to pick up and play and simple mechanically, but really fun and aesthetically pleasing. You may beat them, you may not, that's not really the point. The point is to have fun with them, push yourself, and move on to the next game as your time commitments allow. Happy gaming!

Very well written post.

I agree, it's much better to leave the classics unfinished than to just brute force your way into them. Now having said that, I don't see an issue using save states to suspend your play session, but using them to repeatedly get past a level is going against the spirit of how these older games are meant to be played. They aren't meant to be beaten with what is effectively giving yourself infinite lives.

 

[PrankT]

nintendo hasn't been relevant since the SNES died.

You need to come up with something better than that.

 

[Morfeo]

3DS. I've put a bit of info above.

A game like Mega Man at least lets you refill health (more easily) if you make mistakes. MM1 was pretty tough, but ultimately only the final stages are a real challenge, while Zelda II is a pretty long game.

Well, you can refill health in the cities which im sure you know. There is also the shield and life-spells that should be used often during the harder parts of the game.

Basically, you have to treat the game a bit more like an rpg, you go "out on adventure" to a dungeon, bring with you your three lives, and hope to get as far as possible. It is no shame in not being able to completely beat it in one go, as long as you made some progress, got a key, opened a few doors, maybe got the dungeon item that lets you get back easier etc. I dont know, I think I could probably beat the whole game without dying before the road to the last palace, which is the only hard part of the game imo. Learning to master the combat is necessary though, its like Dark Souls, hard to get into, but so satisfying when you master it.


By the way, where are you right now?

 

[Stopdoor]

Well, you can refill health in the cities which im sure you know. There is also the shield and life-spells that should be used often during the harder parts of the game.

Basically, you have to treat the game a bit more like an rpg, you go "out on adventure" to a dungeon, bring with you your three lives, and hope to get as far as possible. It is no shame in not being able to completely beat it in one go, as long as you made some progress, got a key, opened a few doors, maybe got the dungeon item that lets you get back easier etc. I dont know, I think I could probably beat the whole game without dying before the road to the last palace, which is the only hard part of the game imo. Learning to master the combat is necessary though, its like Dark Souls, hard to get into, but so satisfying when you master it.


By the way, where are you right now?

It is nice that the items can serve as 'checkpoints' for the dungeons. The thing is, I just don't have the time to brute force my way through dungeons like that nowadays. I think it's enough of challenge working my way through once optimally.

Mastering the combat is satisfying yes, but every new enemy means re-learning it, it seems. It's just a bit tiring because it's not that deep combat? It's more about constant precision and reflexes, and I mean constant.

I'm at the... 4th Palace? The Maze Palace. My stats are all around Level 6.

 

[Charlouie Jonesman]

The only time I ever used save states was the final boss in the first Ninja Gaiden. That was just bullshit. Especially considering it was a glitch that the developers intentionally kept in because they thought it was cool.

To explain this for people who never played the game: So, the game has 6 chapters, right?

Most of these chapters have about 3 stages. These stages are then further divided into about 3 short sub-stages.

So, you die at any point, you start at the beginning of the sub-stage.

You loose all your lives? It's back to the beginning of the stage for you.

However!...if you die during any of the last boss' three forms, you're send back to the beginning of the entire chapter! It doesn't matter how many lives you had left. The final boss gives no fuck. That also means you gotta do the by far hardest platforming section again.

All that said, I did beat the game legitimately, a short while later.

 

[Wowfunhappy]

A bunch of people are going to hate me for this, but I don't care.

As a huge Nintendo fan, I think that almost no NES games hold up today, outside of Nostalga.

The one major exception is Kirby's Adventure. That's a great game even today, from beginning to end.

There's also a ton of minor exceptions: games that are legitimately fun for 10-30 minutes, but not really more than that. Stuff like Balloon Fight, Punch Out, etc.

Super Mario Bros 3 would be great if you could save and if it wasn't so damn hard. And yes, I know it's relatively easy for an NES game, but THAT'S THE DAMN POINT.

(The SNES, by contrast, has a ton of timeless games)

 

[Morfeo]

It is nice that the items can serve as 'checkpoints' for the dungeons. The thing is, I just don't have the time to brute force my way through dungeons like that nowadays. I think it's enough of challenge working my way through once optimally.

Mastering the combat is satisfying yes, but every new enemy means re-learning it, it seems. It's just a bit tiring because it's not that deep combat? It's more about constant precision and reflexes, and I mean constant.

I'm at the... 4th Palace? The Maze Palace. My stats are all around Level 6.

Well that is good work, except one part near the end, you are past the hardest.

I will say if you are trying to just visit a dungeon once, and do it optimally with the three lives you get, then yes, the game can be hard. Especially since you will often go in the wrong direction etc when you start out, thus wasting life. I consider it acceptable to visit them several times, and it doesnt take that long to walk to them either, considering the items work as shortcuts. Anyways, i hope you stick with it, Im sure you will feel great if you can beat it eventually.

Also, be sure to join us in the Nes Appreciation thread to write about your further journeys in the game.

 

[Monado Blade]

Even the mazes are cool; where other games would just have you blindly figure out the right path through trial and repetition, SMB asks you to pay attention to small details by using a little chime to tell you if you're going the right way or not.

I don't think there was a chime in the original NES game.

 

[Lothar]

A bunch of people are going to hate me for this, but I don't care.

As a huge Nintendo fan, I think that almost no NES games hold up today, outside of Nostalga.

The one major exception is Kirby's Adventure. That's a great game even today, from beginning to end.

There's also a ton of minor exceptions: games that are legitimately fun for 10-30 minutes, but not really more than that. Stuff like Balloon Fight, Punch Out, etc.

Super Mario Bros 3 would be great if you could save and if it wasn't so damn hard. And yes, I know it's relatively easy for an NES game, but THAT'S THE DAMN POINT.

Instead of saying games don't hold up, say that you don't like challenge. It's not that games don't hold up. It's that you have a peculiar oddity about you that only allows you to enjoy easy games.

I made a big list and didn't Kirby's Adventure. I would put it on the bottom of big NES titles to play. Because it's too damn easy.

 

[Morfeo]

The only time I ever used save states was the final boss in the first Ninja Gaiden. That was just bullshit..

I think this is acceptable, barely. Having to go back those levels are such bullshit. At least one of the forms of the boss stay dead if you manage to beat it.

I don't think there was a chime in the original NES game.

There wasnt.

Instead of saying games don't hold up, say that you don't like challenge. It's not that games don't hold up. It's that you have a peculiar oddity about you that only allows you to enjoy easy games.

I made a big list and didn't Kirby's Adventure. I would put it on the bottom of big NES titles to play. Because it's too damn easy.

Pretty much this. Kirbys Adventure is a decent game, but I would not list it among the top 25 Nes-games. Maybe not even the top 50.

 

[Stopdoor]

Well that is good work, except one part near the end, you are past the hardest.

I will say if you are trying to just visit a dungeon once, and do it optimally with the three lives you get, then yes, the game can be hard. Especially since you will often go in the wrong direction etc when you start out, thus wasting life. I consider it acceptable to visit them several times, and it doesnt take that long to walk to them either, considering the items work as shortcuts. Anyways, i hope you stick with it, Im sure you will feel great if you can beat it eventually.

Also, be sure to join us in the Nes Appreciation thread to write about your further journeys in the game.

Oh, I am enjoying it. So I don't feel too guilty about the save state thing. I do understand the value of challenge, it's just hard for me to understand how people can put up with Zelda especially when it seems more annoying than some other NES games I have beaten.

Thanks!

Instead of saying games don't hold up, say that you don't like challenge. It's not that games don't hold up. It's that you have a peculiar oddity about you that only allows you to enjoy easy games.

I made a big list and didn't Kirby's Adventure. I would put it on the bottom of big NES titles to play. Because it's too damn easy.

You know, I've never really liked Kirby's Adventure much because I found it boring, and I wonder if that's from the lack of challenge? It's visually impressive for an NES game but still kind of bland all around. I enjoy later Kirby games a bit more maybe solely because the quality visuals do a lot for it? But then some people love Kirby's Adventure, so I dunno.

 

[xevis]

I don't think there was a chime in the original NES game.

I could have sworn there was, but it seems you're right. I must have been remembering the version from All Stars. Regardless, SMB still shines so very bright.

 

[NewGame]

Faxanadu.

For some reason this always appears in "what NES games should I play" threads.

Castlevania sold more for a reason.

 

[HotHamBoy]

Go directly to SMB3. Then SMB2. Two is a different animal because it was a reskin of a different game entirely. SMB3 is the forward progression of the series and possibly the best. Certainly up there.

Then SMB World.

Then Yoshi's Island, the best Nintendo platformer.

Skip the original Metroid and Zelda and go straight to Super Metroid and Zelda: A Link to the Past. Those are still incredible games today. They are also far more accessible than the original entries.

The next Zelda game you should play is Link's Awakening DX for Game Boy Color. It's the best one. I'm serious.

First Kirby game should be Kirby Super Star. I recommend playing Nightmare in Dreamland on GBA if you are curious about Kirby's Adventure (it's a remake)

Do not sleep on Earthbound. One of the best SNES games and one of the best RPGs ever.

Donkey Kong Country 1 and 2

Super Punch Out

Tetris Attack

You are gonna want to skip SNES Starfox and get right into Star Fox 64. Play the 3DS version, if you can.

Likewise, the 3DS versions of Zelda: Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask are vastly improved over the N64 originals. I prefer A Link Between Worlds, tbh.

The newest Pokemon game is the best place to start. The old games are toooooo old.

Now you are ready for Smash Bros Melee on Game Cube!

Time to check out these GBA games: Warioland 4, Warioware Inc, Metroid Zero Mission, Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga, Super Mario Advance (this is a reduxe of SMB2 and honestly the only version you should play)

Which Mario Kart!?!? Well, N64 is the classic version. But honestly, MK8 on Wii U is the best. Still, they are all solid. Maybe just skip the SNES original.

F-Zero: N64 and/or Gamecube

All the Pikmin Games are great

Metroid Prime is amazing. The Wii version is best.

Animal Crossing: New Leaf (3DS) is the best AC game, but you could settle for City Folk on Wii.

Back to Mario: Mario 64, Galaxy 1 & 2, 3D Land, 3D World.

Now you are ready to get back to basics: New Super Mario Bros Wii U

Fire Emblem: GBA, Game Cube and Awakening on 3DS. Awakening is the most accessible. I would start there.

Rhythm Heaven on 3DS

Smash Bros Wii U

What am I missing? A lot? I'm bored with this now.

Byeeeeeeeeee!

 

[Makonero]

My favorite NES game is Earthbound Beginnings.

Yes, it's balls hard. Yes, it's totally a grindfest at certain areas.

But it is one of the most atmospheric, memorable, musically varied, creepy, lonely games I've ever played. Not as good as Earthbound or Mother 3, but there are some things I think that those games miss that are present in the original game.

But definitely play the US version with a run button, for God's sake.

 

[virtualS]

How are you playing them? Emulator with x360 controller? If so, not an accurate reflection of the original experience.

Super Mario Bros was mind blowing 30 years ago. That's a long time.

Still, a fun game.

 

[KratosEnergyDrink]

Seriously? Buy a Wii U, it has some of the best new incarnations of Nintendos popular series and some new games on top.

Playing 30 year old games does not make much sense if you are not used to it because the approach to games and their perception was much different back than.

 

[John Caboose]

I love a game like Dark Souls is because it feels fair. Nothing about having three continues feels fair to me. Instead it feels arbitrary and like a choice made to get more money from people in the arcades. I'm not putting quarters into my own machine so that complete "Game Over - Start from the beginning" design choice, while there for a reason, is not for me at all. I don't feel particularly swayed by the mastery argument but I'm still happy it has been made. Having my suspicions confirmed that the mazes are just pure trial and error in the original NES version, the one I played, further confirms to me just how bad those mazes are.

I did say I didn't find SMB "interesting" to play and it really wasn't. I did however find it to be enjoyable in some ways, specifically how it felt to control Mario and how I could really feel myself improving. While spending 20h on it would have made me a lot more proficient at the game and I might have been able to complete the thing without save-states that has never been my goal.

Again thank you for all of your thoughts, I'm appreciative of all of them, those in agreement and those in disagreement.

Someone said what I was doing was some sort of content tourism and they're right, I am not trying to go back into an alternative universe where I'm a kid going through Nintendo's games. I'm looking at them as an adult who just hasn't played them yet.

 

[Sir Ilpalazzo]

I love a game like Dark Souls is because it feels fair. Nothing about having three continues feels fair to me.

Why? It's the same concept - except in Super Mario Bros. or other arcade-style games with limited lives, you are being asked to perform consistently well over a longer stretch of playtime (as opposed to the relatively short segments you are asked to learn in a game with frequent checkpoints like Dark Souls).

 

[John Caboose]

Why? It's the same concept - except in Super Mario Bros. or other arcade-style games with limited lives, you are being asked to perform consistently well over a longer stretch of playtime (as opposed to the relatively short segments you are asked to learn in a game with frequent checkpoints like Dark Souls).

It makes all the difference in the world though. I would never ever have finished Dark Souls or probably even enjoyed it if it restarted me from the beginning of the game every third death. If I was aware of the infinite continues trick I would probably not have had to use save states and it would have made the game a lot more fair.

 

[BGBW]

You can beat SMB in only eight levels if you learn the game well.

 

[redcrayon]

Despite growing up with the NES, I always find the SNES games much easier to return to, as it just felt like that was when the 2D games turned into what they were always meant to be for me.

While I loved SMB1/3, Mega Man 2-3, Zelda and Metroid at the time, given a choice I'll always play SMW, Mega Man X, Zelda LTTP and Super Metroid instead, as the responsiveness and increased mobility hasn't aged a day. Modern 2D games still take notes from those titles on how a 2D game should 'feel' for a reason, although the core ideas of their predecessors remain stunning bits of game design.

 

[Sir_Crocodile]

While growing up I've obviously dabbled with SMB at other people's houses but I've only played maybe a couple of levels in it before this point. I first tried playing it regularly without any save-states but I quickly realized that the archaic mechanic of starting the entire game over after a couple of deaths wasn't for me. I ended up saving at the start of each level letting me play through the game with a lessened level of frustration.

You don't have to play the whole game again.
You hold down a and start on the title screen and this starts you off and the beginning of the world you died at.

Super Mario Bros.
Super Mario Bros. 2
Super Mario Bros. 3
Legend of Zelda
Zelda 2 The Adventure of Link
Donkey Kong
Punch Out!!
Dr Mario
Metroid

Maniac Mansion
Super Turrican
Ducktales
Ducktales 2
Wizards & Warriors
Wizards & Warriors 2
Wizards & Warriors 3
Castlevania 3
Megaman 2
Megaman 3
Megaman 4
Gargoyles Quest 2
Bionic Commando
Kabuki Quantum Fighter
Parodius
Shadowgate
Swords and Serpents
Little Nemo Dream Master
Monsters in my Pocket
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 2

Maybe Battle of Olympus. Haven't played it recently enough to see if it aged well.

 

[goldenpp72]

The sad truth about this era is that most of the games are pretty crude. The reason people hold Mario 3 to such a high standard is because it's a masterfully made game that can compete with the onslaught of amazing, timeless gems on the Snes. While it is undeniable that NES was a masterful console for its time, it's a difficult nut to get into now. This isn't to say no fun can be had, definitely play Mario 3 through fully as it takes a big dump on the original, 2 is also fun but not a real Mario title. If the system has Kirby on it and Mega Man stuff, those have also aged quite well. Castlevania 3 is also good but I don't think that's on that system.

Hopefully they do a Snes system and do it justice, as that era is still the golden era of 2d.

 

[DarkTom]

I would play Super Mario Bros 3 right now because it's pure greatness.

The only problem is that most platformers you'll play after will be pale in comparison.

 

[FSLink]

I love a game like Dark Souls is because it feels fair. Nothing about having three continues feels fair to me. Instead it feels arbitrary and like a choice made to get more money from people in the arcades. I'm not putting quarters into my own machine so that complete "Game Over - Start from the beginning" design choice, while there for a reason, is not for me at all. I don't feel particularly swayed by the mastery argument but I'm still happy it has been made. Having my suspicions confirmed that the mazes are just pure trial and error in the original NES version, the one I played, further confirms to me just how bad those mazes are.

I did say I didn't find SMB "interesting" to play and it really wasn't. I did however find it to be enjoyable in some ways, specifically how it felt to control Mario and how I could really feel myself improving. While spending 20h on it would have made me a lot more proficient at the game and I might have been able to complete the thing without save-states that has never been my goal.

Again thank you for all of your thoughts, I'm appreciative of all of them, those in agreement and those in disagreement.

Someone said what I was doing was some sort of content tourism and they're right, I am not trying to go back into an alternative universe where I'm a kid going through Nintendo's games. I'm looking at them as an adult who just hasn't played them yet.

I guess the difference is that early games like SMB rewarded your "skills" with harder levels to challenge you further, whereas most later games the point is to reach the end of the game. Obsessing over completing it will diminish the experience since earlier games are meant for you to "master it" to complete it.

It was also a different era, stuff like the maze I learned due to word of mouth back then. Stuff like that I think is fine to just look up what to do nowadays. Same with the original Zelda games.

And yeah I think most people enjoy SMB3 better nowadays due to the easier difficulty/better level design and is easier to see from start to finish.

 

[Yoshi]

nintendo hasn't been relevant since the SNES died.

Super Mario 64? Wii? DS? One of the most influential games ever made, two of the most successful platforms, one of them being the most successful platform so far, I'd say claiming Nintendo has been irrelevant since the SNES is - even when you set the standards absurdely high - downright dumb. It's completely fine to never have owned a Nintendo system. In fact, there exist console developers I myself have never owned a console from, like Panasonic, Atari or Coleco, so would definitely have no right to "complain" about that, but your statement is definitely ridiculous.

 

[Morfeo]

It makes all the difference in the world though. I would never ever have finished Dark Souls or probably even enjoyed it if it restarted me from the beginning of the game every third death. If I was aware of the infinite continues trick I would probably not have had to use save states and it would have made the game a lot more fair.

How long you are sent back when dying in Dark Souls is comparable to Super Mario Bros though. In both games, it penalises you when you die by having you replay something, and in both games, it takes at max 15 minutes to get back to where you were. Remember the Warps existed for exactly this reason, so you wouldnt have to play through all the levels to get back to where you were.

I love Dark Souls too btw. Because they share a lot of design sensibilities with old games like Mario, Zelda and Castlevania.

 

[petran79]

I do. Respawing is lighting fast, you get unlimited lives and levels are short. It's the perfect modern evolution of an old school gaming practice I think, and I'm sure a lot of people actually prefer that by far.

The disadvantage of such games is that you have to play it exactly like the developer intended, in pixel perfect precision and with the added digital input lag, thus leaving no room for exploration or experimentation.

Kinda like playing SMB1 where everything except the speedrun path is instant game over.

Not many would have bought such a game.

 

[AuthenticM]

Play them in order or release. When you get to the Super Nintendo with Super Mario World and A Link to the Past, your mind will be blown by how they are advanced. Super Mario World might very well still be the best game of all time.

 

[openrob]

It makes all the difference in the world though. I would never ever have finished Dark Souls or probably even enjoyed it if it restarted me from the beginning of the game every third death. If I was aware of the infinite continues trick I would probably not have had to use save states and it would have made the game a lot more fair.

The difference is that decent run of Mario you can finish in 10 minutes, it had the arcade routes.

I experienced a similar thing with playing Streets of Rage recently. When you die, you die. Similar with Crazy Taxi

It's frustrating IF you expect to complete it, rather than PLAY it and give it a run through when you fancy. If you don't like the game though, that isn't fun, so don't worry

 

[ozfunghi]

Hmmm... honestly, maybe you should just dive into the SNES games. IMO, 2D game design and mechanics greatly improved and i can't imagine you would be saying the same thing about games like Super Mario World or Link to the Past. Maybe you could try the original Metroid, but i would advise you not to try and play ALL the games of of any one franchise in order. You'll just get fed up and bail out before getting to the good stuff. Not saying that those games aren't good or have no merrit, but i don't think it's interesting to play them like that.

In fact, i would just look at the hallmark games of each generation, play those in random order. Unless you want to write an encyclopedia. Then you can still dive into the lesser known or older games of a certain franchise, if you really like a certain franchise and want to know how it developed over time. It will be more interesting, than playing them like a chore.

 

[Lothar]

Someone said what I was doing was some sort of content tourism and they're right, I am not trying to go back into an alternative universe where I'm a kid going through Nintendo's games. I'm looking at them as an adult who just hasn't played them yet.

That doesn't make much sense. Content Tourism is the kid thing. That reminds me of kids that rather watch Let's Plays than play a game. They rather view a game than experience it. It's the Content Tourism games that treat you like a kid that has infinite free time. I don't know how a adult is supposed to beat a 100 hour game like Witcher 3 or Skyrim. I've been playing Witcher 3 for a year trying to beat it. I don't remember much of the story or what I was doing each time I start it again. It feels like it's meant for people that can finish it in a week.

Dark Souls is not fair. One little mistake or loss to a boss and you're set back 5-10 minutes. That was excruciating. I must have walked that path from the checkpoint to Ornstein and Smough 50 times. Or how's about that long path from the checkpoint to the first Dragon. I had to walk that a bunch. Dark Souls needed lives or continues. If you have time for Dark Souls, you have time for anything.

 

[Yoshi]

How long you are sent back when dying in Dark Souls is comparable to Super Mario Bros though. In both games, it penalises you when you die by having you replay something, and in both games, it takes at max 15 minutes to get back to where you were. Remember the Warps existed for exactly this reason, so you wouldnt have to play through all the levels to get back to where you were.

I love Dark Souls too btw. Because they share a lot of design sensibilities with old games like Mario, Zelda and Castlevania.

This necessitates knowing the warp zones though. For an average player playing Super Mario Bros. for the first time, I'm quite certain that it takes a lot longer to get back to the same spot than in Dark Souls games (I still think it's fine though, for SMB. For SMB3 I think it is quite harsh however). I don't see a strong similarity between Nintendo games and Souls by the way. Especially since Nintendo usually is trying to make games as direct and uncomplicated as possible (disregarding some exemptions like Wave Race) and Souls is a crass counter-approach to that.

 

[cyress8]

Play River City Ransom.

It is the precursor to Scott Pilgrim vs The World. If you played and enjoyed Scott, then you will love this game.

 

[Sir_Crocodile]

It is nice that the items can serve as 'checkpoints' for the dungeons. The thing is, I just don't have the time to brute force my way through dungeons like that nowadays. I think it's enough of challenge working my way through once optimally.

Mastering the combat is satisfying yes, but every new enemy means re-learning it, it seems. It's just a bit tiring because it's not that deep combat? It's more about constant precision and reflexes, and I mean constant.

I'm at the... 4th Palace? The Maze Palace. My stats are all around Level 6.

You're far enough that this isn't really useful, but there's a way to make zelda 2 a bit easier whereby you skip level ups for magic and health and just focus on attack. after a couple of levels, attack will reach a point where its not feasible to be able to get so much EXP, then you rely on the palace statue in the next palace you have to go to, which automatically gives you enough EXP for your next level up (EG, your next HP level up would take 100 EXP, your next MP level up would take 200 EXP and your next ATK level up would take 2000 EXP, so you make sure you're at least 201 EXP with ATK set to trigger next, and the statue will give you 1799 EXP, or however much is needed). Then when you're between dungeons, you level up HP and MP a bit, thought not enough to stop you from getting ATK leveled up at the next statue. Not sure if I explained that very well, but it speeds up leveling a bit as you're not so dependent on leveling up off enemies.

It's a pretty fun thing to do for Zelda 2 veterans to actually try to complete the game with only ATK leveled up (or even less!).

Another tip - stabbing the ironkunckle palace statue at the entrance to every standard palace has a possibility of dropping a red jar, which once you get the life spell stops you from ever having to go back to town to heal. Just leave/enter the dungeon until whacking it spawns one (and be prepared to run if you're low on health and it spawns an actual ironknuckle!)

 

[Stopdoor]

You're far enough that this isn't really useful, but there's a way to make zelda 2 a bit easier whereby you skip level ups for magic and health and just focus on attack. after a couple of levels, attack will reach a point where its not feasible to be able to get so much EXP, then you rely on the palace statue in the next palace you have to go to, which automatically gives you enough EXP for your next level up (EG, your next HP level up would take 100 EXP, your next MP level up would take 200 EXP and your next ATK level up would take 2000 EXP, so you make sure you're at least 201 EXP with ATK set to trigger next, and the statue will give you 1799 EXP, or however much is needed). Then when you're between dungeons, you level up HP and MP a bit, thought not enough to stop you from getting ATK leveled up at the next statue. Not sure if I explained that very well, but it speeds up leveling a bit as you're not so dependent on leveling up off enemies.

It's a pretty fun thing to do for Zelda 2 veterans to actually try to complete the game with only ATK leveled up (or even less!).

Another tip - stabbing the ironkunckle palace statue at the entrance to every standard palace has a possibility of dropping a red jar, which once you get the life spell stops you from ever having to go back to town to heal. Just leave/enter the dungeon until whacking it spawns one (and be prepared to run if you're low on health and it spawns an actual ironknuckle!)

I dunno if having to conserve Life and perfectly guard every hit to an even greater degree would be a good thing though?

 

[Sir_Crocodile]

I dunno if having to conserve Life and perfectly guard every hit to an even greater degree would be a good thing though?

Well, the idea is your attack goes up a lot faster then the game would expect, so your battles would end up being a lot shorter, so less chances for enemies to hit you.

You get ATK as high as you can before the statue of the first palace, so lets say you get atk to level 3 or 4.

Then the first palace gives you atk level 4/5, and you time all your atk level ups for statues from then on. So you do level up magic and hp, but you always ensure that your next level up when you reach a statue is going to be for attack. You don't want to get life/magic TOO close to atk, as it can then be a bit of a hassle and you're not saving as much grind time, but you're not keeping them at level 1.

Then once you reach palace 4/5, your ATK is at max and you can level up the other two quickly.