NES Completions thread 2024 - 662/677

[nerdynebraskan | 356]

32 minutes ago, NESfiend said:

Last year we beat 600. That leaves 77 unbeaten. Seems like a lot of tough titles that went unbeaten last year are already down. Even if we aren't ahead pace wise, gotta be looking good as far as last years unbeaten games goes. 

It's just that we burn through about 10 games a day through late February, and it's easy to feel like a juggernaught. And then the low-hanging fruit all disappear and we start going days between completions, and then weeks...

The worst was in 2021, where we fell about a dozen short. And those scant few games lasted several months, and we still didn't rally to finish the job. That was our second or third fastest effort ever, until we stalled out completely.

[Khromak | 770]

Incredible crash dummies is done, a first time clear for me. The controls can be awkward but otherwise it's a decent game. That bird level can go to hell, and the final boss you basically have to cheese. Took me like 4 run throughs of the game to get him, fuck that guy

[bronzeshield | 293]

7 hours ago, Khromak said:

I think the difference between a level select code in a manual and a continue code in a manual is you're still experiencing the levels if you use a continue code (Adventure Island, 3d Worldrunner, etc.), you're just given more lives/attempts to do it.

To me, the difference between a continue code in a manual and one that isn't (Ikari Warriors) is that one is a cheat code and the other is a mechanic. The Konami code isn't explicitly told to you and must be discovered, therefore it's a cheat code. If the game tells you to press A to continue, that just means they didn't choose to have a "continue" "restart" menu option and opted for a button combination instead, IMO. The same cannot be said for a code that was not available to a kid who bought the game (Konami code, ABBA).

One thing to add is that, unfortunately, sometimes it was the US staff tasked with localizing a game that made these decisions -- and I'm not just talking about making games harder to combat the rental market. For example, the continue code is present in the manual for the Japanese/Famicom version of Dino Riki (Shin Jinrui: The New Type), but not the North American manual.

Our sense of what's "official" for a game may well hinge on some decision made by an intern with a hangover! And if it weren't for that poster included with Solomon's Key...

I'd be really curious if the Famicom manuals for Arkanoid or Bump 'n Jump (aka Buggy Popper or バギー・ポッパー) have the codes in them, actually, as they seem like two likely candidates. Can't find scans for those, unfortunately.

[Khromak | 770]

Started Legacy of the Wizard today, probably gonna take a couple days to finish, I'm only like 1/4-1/3 of the way through, but I'll have it by this weekend unless someone else does it before then.

[Dr. Morbis | 2,092]

I finished the tournament mode of Legends of the Diamond, although I took the picture a tad too early before the "No. 1" started flashing in the middle of the screen.  The game feels kind of like a poor man's Little League Baseball, but with really bad AI fielding where guys will run away from a ground ball to cover a random base when there's no one running to that base, and make terrible decisions about which bases to throw to when there are runners on base.  I thought it would be cool to play as Babe Ruth and Cy Yound and all those other guys, but it didn't really feel like all the "legends" where anything more than text written on the screen.  I won't be going back to this one any time soon.

 

[Dr. Morbis | 2,092]

14 hours ago, nerdynebraskan said:

 I also consider the level select on the title screen to be a primitive continue menu.

That's my point: there are different ways of allowing continues: sometimes it's on the game's menu with the word "continue" right in the option, but warp zones, to me, are a more "primitive" way for developers to let a player get back to where he was.  I don't think Miyamoto intended for SMB to be like a five level, five minute game for the rest of eternity once word got out about the in-game warp zones, but that's basically where we're at.

The game developers put the ABBA code in Ikari Warriors with intention, and that intention was specifically to allow continues; it wasn't an accident - they purposely programmed in a way for the player to be able to continue.  Same with SMB using A and start and Kung-Fu Heroes using A and start.  It was the '80's and they didn't have everything ironed out just yet.  Someone mentioned Dino Riki already, but another famous game that had its continue mode changed on localization was Ghosts 'N Goblins: in the Japanese version you have to put in a code on the title screen to continue, but they must've realized that putting in that code over and over again got really old really fast, so for the US release they just put the option right in the menu... clearly, they were learning as they went, and that doesn't make continuing in the Japanese version any less legitimate just because you have to enter a built-in code.

I guess my point in all of this is that I can't believe how incredibly low the bar is for almost all of the titles in this project, allowing "easy" modes, warps, single level plays (Spy vs Spy) etc, but then when it comes to using continue codes that are programmed into the game, that's like this hard line that cannot and shall not be crossed - unless it's in the manual.  In my last post, I was just pointing out some of the games that let you skip levels in the manual , but somehow the "must be in the manual" rule only applies to continue codes?  Why is that?  Why don't level skips count if they're in the manual?  It just seems so arbitrary to me, like people are going out of their way to rationalize a standard because that's the way it's always been done.  You can skip most of a game if you're using warp zones but you can't skip most of a game if it's by way of following the instructions on how to do it in the manual?

So it's apparently okay to do Burai Fighter on easy even though it gives you the worst ending, but playing through 100% of Ikari Warriors or Kung-Fu Heroes with continues and getting the best/only ending is totally unacceptable?!?  If this topic isn't open to further discussion anymore, that's totally fine, but that means one of you poor bastards is going to have to spend countless hours of your personal time trying to beat Ikari Warriors without continues every single year, all because whomever originally made the rules a decade ago erroneously thought that the game's developers did not intend for anyone playing their game to use the very continues that they built right into the code.

BTW @scaryice I noticed our Gauntlet II run is still on the board even though I told you we used continues.  I went and tried a solo game and it doesn't mention any way of continuing in one player mode either, so I'm wondering what exactly is the difference between Gauntlet II and Ikari Warriors?  Neither one mentions continues in the manual or the game and you have to press buttons after you die to continue in both of them, so what exactly is the distinction that makes one acceptable and the other one banned?  Either they should both allow continues or both not allow continues, unless I'm missing something...

 

[scaryice | 597]

9 hours ago, bronzeshield said:

One thing to add is that, unfortunately, sometimes it was the US staff tasked with localizing a game that made these decisions -- and I'm not just talking about making games harder to combat the rental market. For example, the continue code is present in the manual for the Japanese/Famicom version of Dino Riki (Shin Jinrui: The New Type), but not the North American manual.

Our sense of what's "official" for a game may well hinge on some decision made by an intern with a hangover! And if it weren't for that poster included with Solomon's Key...

I'd be really curious if the Famicom manuals for Arkanoid or Bump 'n Jump (aka Buggy Popper or バギー・ポッパー) have the codes in them, actually, as they seem like two likely candidates. Can't find scans for those, unfortunately.

I checked before, and I'm pretty sure Arkanoid does not. I don't know about Buggy Popper, though. I was curious about Arkanoid a while ago, and I remember mentioning that if the Japanese manual has codes, then we should probably allow those since it's already fine to play the JP/PAL versions of the game if you feel like it (except for those rare cases where they're totally different).

We should allow the code for Dino Riki, then. I think you mentioned it before, but I totally forgot about it.

[Gaia Gensouki | 1,079]

Btw. Did anybody start with Swords and Serpents or wants to play it for their personal completion? If not, I would like to clear it this year as well.

[scaryice | 597]

7 hours ago, Dr. Morbis said:

That's my point: there are different ways of allowing continues: sometimes it's on the game's menu with the word "continue" right in the option, but warp zones, to me, are a more "primitive" way for developers to let a player get back to where he was.  I don't think Miyamoto intended for SMB to be like a five level, five minute game for the rest of eternity once word got out about the in-game warp zones, but that's basically where we're at.

The game developers put the ABBA code in Ikari Warriors with intention, and that intention was specifically to allow continues; it wasn't an accident - they purposely programmed in a way for the player to be able to continue.  Same with SMB using A and start and Kung-Fu Heroes using A and start.  It was the '80's and they didn't have everything ironed out just yet.  Someone mentioned Dino Riki already, but another famous game that had its continue mode changed on localization was Ghosts 'N Goblins: in the Japanese version you have to put in a code on the title screen to continue, but they must've realized that putting in that code over and over again got really old really fast, so for the US release they just put the option right in the menu... clearly, they were learning as they went, and that doesn't make continuing in the Japanese version any less legitimate just because you have to enter a built-in code.

I guess my point in all of this is that I can't believe how incredibly low the bar is for almost all of the titles in this project, allowing "easy" modes, warps, single level plays (Spy vs Spy) etc, but then when it comes to using continue codes that are programmed into the game, that's like this hard line that cannot and shall not be crossed - unless it's in the manual.  In my last post, I was just pointing out some of the games that let you skip levels in the manual , but somehow the "must be in the manual" rule only applies to continue codes?  Why is that?  Why don't level skips count if they're in the manual?  It just seems so arbitrary to me, like people are going out of their way to rationalize a standard because that's the way it's always been done.  You can skip most of a game if you're using warp zones but you can't skip most of a game if it's by way of following the instructions on how to do it in the manual?

So it's apparently okay to do Burai Fighter on easy even though it gives you the worst ending, but playing through 100% of Ikari Warriors or Kung-Fu Heroes with continues and getting the best/only ending is totally unacceptable?!?  If this topic isn't open to further discussion anymore, that's totally fine, but that means one of you poor bastards is going to have to spend countless hours of your personal time trying to beat Ikari Warriors without continues every single year, all because whomever originally made the rules a decade ago erroneously thought that the game's developers did not intend for anyone playing their game to use the very continues that they built right into the code.

BTW @scaryice I noticed our Gauntlet II run is still on the board even though I told you we used continues.  I went and tried a solo game and it doesn't mention any way of continuing in one player mode either, so I'm wondering what exactly is the difference between Gauntlet II and Ikari Warriors?  Neither one mentions continues in the manual or the game and you have to press buttons after you die to continue in both of them, so what exactly is the distinction that makes one acceptable and the other one banned?  Either they should both allow continues or both not allow continues, unless I'm missing something...

 

Gauntlet II does mention "adding other players" into the game in its manual. I don't think I'd call that a code, though. I see no problems with counting that.

As for Guerrilla War, I don't think it's ever come up because the game is so brain dead easy. I'm not treating that code any differently - it should be allowed too, since it's in the manual. Any manual code is fine. We also allow only playing the last 1/4th of Lemmings, which I believe Daniel Doyce did this year. The difference between those games and something like Ice Climber is a clear ending.

Our logic has always been that it's fine to get any ending, as long as you've beaten the whole game. And no "bad endings", which would rule out the easiest one in Bubble Bobble for instance. Burai Fighter doesn't say "BAD END", it says "An ace would see a graphic ending", which implies that the easy level is also an ending.

Part of the reason "the bar is low" is because in most years we don't even come close to 677. Requiring the best endings would mean we would do even worse. Now if I was one of the people trying to clear every game in the library, I would avoid taking some shortcuts just for my own state of mind. I wouldn't skip levels in Lemmings, for instance. But I don't think we need to be that tough on everyone.

But we do need some standards. As I said before, I'm not sure how we could logically allow continue codes but not other codes. If the games don't tell you about them anywhere, then what's separating a continue code from a 30 life code, or an invincibility code? I mean, there's a reason they're called cheat codes. You mentioned warp zones, but they're a built in part of the game that you can access without cheating. They might be cheap. There's a lot of gameplay tactics that are cheap - I know I was pause-buffering the other day in Chubby Cherub, for instance. But there's a difference between cheap and cheating.

I know you can argue that early games didn't bother with actual continue menus, but that quickly became the standard and most NES games are like that. Also, I think part of the charm for some of these games is the fact that you can't legitimately continue, and it's ridiculously hard as a result. I did beat Ikari Warriors before, and that was one of my greatest gaming moments. It's only really a small handful of titles that are hard enough to be affected, so I feel don't feel bad about making people do it the hard way.

[nerdynebraskan | 356]

Code Name: Viper is done. 

I played it on Easy as usual, but I just 1CCed it for the first time. I can't brag too hard, because it was on easy, but it did feel pretty good. I may have done a spontaneous happy dance, but since I'm alone the world may never know for sure. 

[Bearcat-Doug | 5,105]

P.O.W: Prisoners of War is done.

[NESfiend | 1,517]

Started on bad news baseball. Will have it done by the end of the weekend 

[Khromak | 770]

Legacy of the wizard is done. This time I made the target unfortunate decision to do Lyll's crown last and lemme tell ya, she sucks against the final guardian. Really badly. After finally managing to take him down, the rest was a cake walk. Couldn't imagine trying to beat this blind though, damn

[Dr. Morbis | 2,092]

13 hours ago, scaryice said:

Gauntlet II does mention "adding other players" into the game in its manual. I don't think I'd call that a code, though. I see no problems with counting that.

As for Guerrilla War, I don't think it's ever come up because the game is so brain dead easy. I'm not treating that code any differently - it should be allowed too, since it's in the manual. Any manual code is fine. We also allow only playing the last 1/4th of Lemmings, which I believe Daniel Doyce did this year. The difference between those games and something like Ice Climber is a clear ending.

Our logic has always been that it's fine to get any ending, as long as you've beaten the whole game. And no "bad endings", which would rule out the easiest one in Bubble Bobble for instance. Burai Fighter doesn't say "BAD END", it says "An ace would see a graphic ending", which implies that the easy level is also an ending.

Part of the reason "the bar is low" is because in most years we don't even come close to 677. Requiring the best endings would mean we would do even worse. Now if I was one of the people trying to clear every game in the library, I would avoid taking some shortcuts just for my own state of mind. I wouldn't skip levels in Lemmings, for instance. But I don't think we need to be that tough on everyone.

But we do need some standards. As I said before, I'm not sure how we could logically allow continue codes but not other codes. If the games don't tell you about them anywhere, then what's separating a continue code from a 30 life code, or an invincibility code? I mean, there's a reason they're called cheat codes. You mentioned warp zones, but they're a built in part of the game that you can access without cheating. They might be cheap. There's a lot of gameplay tactics that are cheap - I know I was pause-buffering the other day in Chubby Cherub, for instance. But there's a difference between cheap and cheating.

I know you can argue that early games didn't bother with actual continue menus, but that quickly became the standard and most NES games are like that. Also, I think part of the charm for some of these games is the fact that you can't legitimately continue, and it's ridiculously hard as a result. I did beat Ikari Warriors before, and that was one of my greatest gaming moments. It's only really a small handful of titles that are hard enough to be affected, so I feel don't feel bad about making people do it the hard way.

Fair enough.  I understand where you're coming from, it's just that there are still some incongruancies that stand out a bit, especially after your above explanation.  For example, the early black box games that tell you in the manual how to select your level: why can't someone select the 100th stage of Wrecking Crew and beat the game?  You just explained in great depth above why "in the manual" is your canon, so what is the "by rule" reason for requiring the other 99 stages of Wrecking Crew to be played?  The same question goes for any other game in the library that tells you how to select your level in the manual.

As for bad endings, that's the sort of thing that should be spelled out in the pastebin file, I think, since those are not always obvious.  One example that comes to mind is Kid Kool, where the objective is to beat the game as quickly as possible to save the king's life.  If you take too long, you still get an ending, but the King is already dead, and I'm wondering how many people over the years have reported that they beat the game because they got to "the ending," not knowing or caring that they didn't actually beat the game because they failed to accomplish their objective: to save the King.  Another example is Rescue: The Embassy Mission where the pastebin just says to beat Mission Jupiter, but you actually get a bad ending on Jupiter for any result other than a no-death run.  And there are several other games in the library with anomalies like these.

Anyway, you've been doing an absolutely amazing job with this project for many years, and I am in no way trying to discredit that; I only make these posts and ask these questions because I care.  If it's your perogitave to disallow built-in continue codes, then that's the way it is; I guess we'll have to wait and see who among us is going to be willing to set aside the time and don the mantle and tackle Ikari Warriors for 2024.  (I can tell you who it won't be, though... )

[Gaia Gensouki | 1,079]

Super Spy Hunter is done.

[the_wizard_666 | 1,325]

2 hours ago, Dr. Morbis said:

As for bad endings, that's the sort of thing that should be spelled out in the pastebin file, I think, since those are not always obvious.  One example that comes to mind is Kid Kool, where the objective is to beat the game as quickly as possible to save the king's life.  If you take too long, you still get an ending, but the King is already dead, and I'm wondering how many people over the years have reported that they beat the game because they got to "the ending," not knowing or caring that they didn't actually beat the game because they failed to accomplish their objective: to save the King.  Another example is Rescue: The Embassy Mission where the pastebin just says to beat Mission Jupiter, but you actually get a bad ending on Jupiter for any result other than a no-death run.  And there are several other games in the library with anomalies like these.

Bad endings have always been accepted except in instances where they don't involve actually finishing the game.  If we're pushing solely for the good endings in games like those mentioned, we would have to extend that to Metroid, Castlevania II, and a bunch of others.  While the good endings are obviously ideal, I wouldn't say you didn't beat any of them if you didn't get the best ending, because you still had to get through the entire game.  Again, we're striving to beat every game, not perfect every game.

Specifically relating to Rescue though, is there any particular reason Jupiter is required?  I just put some research in and it seems that the overall mission is the same, just the number of enemies is increased and the time limit decreases.  Since on Training there are also no hostages, I would say that one shouldn't be counted, but I'm curious as to why we can't do Target for this thread.  To be clear, I would want to do it on Jupiter myself, and am perfectly okay with the restriction, but since the endings don't change at all, and we're not requiring a good ending, is there a reason it has to be Jupiter? 

[Dr. Morbis | 2,092]

3 minutes ago, the_wizard_666 said:

Bad endings have always been accepted except in instances where they don't involve actually finishing the game.

That's the opposite of what he just explained in his post above: if you play through the entirety of Bubble Bobble and don't miss a single level, but finish without a second player, you will get the bad ending that he does not count.  I think you're confusing bad endings with "less than the best endings," and your examples seem to indicate that.  Metroid doesn't have a bad ending and neither does Castlevania II; they have less than ideal endings but they don't explicitly state that you haven't achieved your goal like a real bad ending does (see: Bubble Bobble, Kid Kool, Rescue: The Embassy Mission).

[Khromak | 770]

Bubble Bobble bad ending is just 1-100, not including the letter levels, right?

[the_wizard_666 | 1,325]

2 minutes ago, Dr. Morbis said:

That's the opposite of what he just explained in his post above: if you play through the entirety of Bubble Bobble and don't miss a single level, but finish without a second player, you will get the bad ending that he does not count.  I think you're confusing bad endings with "less than the best endings," and your examples seem to indicate that.  Metroid doesn't have a bad ending and neither does Castlevania II; they have less than ideal endings but they don't explicitly state that you haven't achieved your goal like a real bad ending does (see: Bubble Bobble, Kid Kool, Rescue: The Embassy Mission).

Good point there.  So I suppose it should be determined, and then universally applied, whether the "true" ending stipulation established by games like Double Dragon II (required difficulty to see the full game and real ending) would apply to these games, or if a bad ending should still count.  I'm leaning toward bad endings being okay so long as they are tied to performance and not options like difficulty selection, which would allow all the instances mentioned there, as well as other games like Alfred Chicken, where the good ending is achieved by getting hidden items in the game, but the bad ending still requires beating the full game.

Just now, Khromak said:

Bubble Bobble bad ending is just 1-100, not including the letter levels, right?

The bad ending is when you beat the game on one player.  You only get the good ending when beating the final boss on two player mode.

[Dr. Morbis | 2,092]

2 minutes ago, Khromak said:

Bubble Bobble bad ending is just 1-100, not including the letter levels, right?

I haven't played it in a long time, but I believe you get the bad end if you don't have both players alive when you pop the final boss...

[Khromak | 770]

From strategy wiki:

Worst ending: Fail to collect the crystal in Round 99, and defeat the final boss.

Bad ending: Collect the crystal in Round 99, and defeat the final boss in a single player game.

Good ending: Collect the crystal in Round 99, and defeat the final boss in a two player game.

Best ending: Collect the crystal in Round 99, and defeat the final boss in Super Bubble Bobble mode in a two player game. You will also unlock a Sound Test mode.

After 99 if you get the crystal, there are extra levels before the boss.

Edited February 10 by Khromak

[Dr. Morbis | 2,092]

6 minutes ago, Khromak said:

From strategy wiki:

Worst ending: Fail to collect the crystal in Round 99, and defeat the final boss.

Bad ending: Collect the crystal in Round 99, and defeat the final boss in a single player game.

Good ending: Collect the crystal in Round 99, and defeat the final boss in a two player game.

Best ending: Collect the crystal in Round 99, and defeat the final boss in Super Bubble Bobble mode in a two player game. You will also unlock a Sound Test mode.

If you finish the game with only one player alive in any of those situations, I believe you get the bad ending; you must have both players alive to trigger the two good endings above.

EDIT: So, to put it simply, collect the crystal in 99 and beat either mode with two players alive at the end to avoid a bad ending.

Edited February 10 by Dr. Morbis

[Khromak | 770]

6 minutes ago, Dr. Morbis said:

If you finish the game with only one player alive in any of those situations, I believe you get the bad ending; you must have both players alive to trigger the two good endings above.

EDIT: So, to put it simply, collect the crystal in 99 and beat either mode with two players alive at the end to avoid a bad ending.

Right, and the crystal involves extra levels. Maybe that's why the distinction exists, IDK.

[Dr. Morbis | 2,092]

1 minute ago, Khromak said:

Right, and the crystal involves extra levels. Maybe that's why the distinction exists, IDK.

The two player part is academic though, because you can play one player for the entire game and then when the final boss is bubbled, pause with start and then press select while paused to give one of your reserve men to player two before unpausing and popping the final boss bubble for the proper ending...

[the_wizard_666 | 1,325]

31 minutes ago, Khromak said:

Right, and the crystal involves extra levels. Maybe that's why the distinction exists, IDK.

But then I think the distinction should just be to beat the game after acquiring the crystal.  Requiring a second player on screen is not only overkill, but an unnecessary extra step IMO.  Especially since the ending for 1 player with the crystal is distinct from the one without it.