profholt82

About 10 or so years back, there was a guy on nintendoage who had a Mega Man 1 for sale with a Churchills Grocery Store sticker on it. And it was the address of the one that was close to my house that I rented from all the time. I had literally rented and played that exact Mega Man cart numerous times as a kid. I still remember their deal for Tuesdays. 2 games, 2 nights for the price of one. So as long as I kept my grades up, my parents would let me rent NES games every week. Anyway, I probably saw the guy's listing a day or two after it posted, and someone had already beaten me to the punch. I was so disappointed. There are a few games I regret not grabbing over the years here or there, mostly because they're stupid expensive now, but missing out on that Mega Man cart was a gut punch that still haunts me.

Your research and everything is really cool though. I guess it's just that I've seen a lot of Blockbuster lately around the net and youtube and such. People seem to get all gushy about it, but I never had that feeling about it all. Even the other big chains like Movie Gallery, Family Video and Hollywood Video were preferable to me. Although, I agree, the local mom and pop places were where it was at. You know, as of a few years ago, there was still a Family Video down the street from my house. And I rented new releases there fairly regularly. And they kept stocking new games as well. And surprisingly enough perhaps, there was usually a decent crowd there on the weekends. This is as of the year or two before the chain closed up. While I'm not sure because I've never done it so correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't new release movies on amazon, google play, microsoft store, etc, like 15-20 bucks to rent digitally? I mean, yeah, I suppose that's more convenient than driving back and forth to a shop, but damn.

I feel like I'm the only person who isn't nostalgic for Blockbuster. They were basically the Wal-Mart of video stores, except they had higher prices than most of their competitors. There were so many other video stores, and I liked almost all of them much more than Blockbuster.

It was actually not uncommon for RPGs to include strategy guides outside of the Nintendo consoles. Very common on PC, and there were a number of games on the Genesis that included them in the early 90s. Off the top of my head, Phantasy Star II, Sword of Vermillion and Star Control all included them. Now, obviously just standard manuals and maps were commonplace, and with RPGs and more complex games, the SNES was usually good about giving you a fairly thick manual and a map. But yeah, SNES games were not known for guide books. And other than making the box look huge on a store shelf the same way some movie labels did with those oversized VHS boxes, there's really no reason they couldn't have made the book the same dimensions as a standard box. Even if the box had to be thicker, it should have been the same LxW as the others. That had to have pissed off retailers, and I wouldn't be surprised if it affected sales as a result. As in perhaps many didn't properly display it due to the size and just kept it behind the counter. Speculation, but reasonable speculation. You remember what it was like at box stores and KB and such, there was usually a big cabinet and it was stuffed side to side with games. There wouldn't have been space for that massive box. And cool to see Contra III in the top 10. It's definitely in my top 10 on the console and I still revisit it often. Not my favorite Contra game, but as an enthusiast of the franchise, it ranks up there pretty highly overall.

F. Scott Fitzgerald's wife was named Zelda.

I think that because I'm a little older than you, I grew up with (and have a similar affinity for as a result) the NES the way that you did with the SNES. And MTPO was one of the dozen or so games that I owned growing up before the NES went in the closet for a few years to make room for the Genesis in 92 or so. So likely because of that, at least when it comes to nostalgic influence, I will always hold MTPO in much higher regard than Super Punch Out. I suppose at the end of the day, they have similar gameplay, but I find that MTPO has so much more character. With the cut scenes and the dialogue exchanges between Little Mac and Doc in between rounds, the taunts of each fighter, and the chance/unreliability of Mario the referee. These components greatly add to the overall ambiance and total gaming experience. And while Super Punch Out had the charming cartoon graphics, and very similar gameplay, it never really captures the feeling that MTPO did, at least for me. Perhaps I'd feel much differently had I barely played MTPO, and grew up with a SNES. Still a great game, but I couldn't help but feel somewhat deflated playing it for the first time, as it felt like a much lesser MTPO to me. Side note, Super Punch Out is ported to the Gamecube as an extra on the Final Fight Round 2 disc. Edit: I didn't intend to crap on your pick. Ha! Not my intention. It's a great review, and your reasoning for the ranking is justified. It's just that since you talked about and directly compared it to its prequel MTPO, I felt the urge to explain why I felt the opposite.

Oh, man. I actually remember that from atariage back in the day. Hid brother posting about it. Wow, portnoyd was in that thread. Haven't heard that name in years. The game is obviously awful. If the esteemed Mr. Rothchild says it's the worst, and Gamepro considered it one of the worst games they ever reviewed, I believe them. I just thought that Psycho Penguin review was amazing considering the game. It's thousands of laudatory words. Either he had terrible taste, or it was an epic troll job to sucker people into buying the game.

I recently played College Football USA 97, but I have the Sega Genesis version, not the snes. Honestly, not a bad game. So I'm assuming there was a completely different dev team. I know you're in the final stretch, but I'm revisiting number 714. Ha! Anyway, I was curious about the game, and the wiki page includes this glorious snippet from Gamepro: However, GamePro called the Super NES port "a complete gridiron debacle. Players fly around the field - except for the man with the ball, whose movements slow down and become jerky. The frame rate and animation are poor (the players look armless), and the sound features the most obnoxious whistle in sports gaming history." They rated it a 1.5 out of 5 in graphics and a 0.5 in every other category (sound, control, and funfactor),[6] making it only the second game to receive a 0.5 or lower from GamePro in any category.[7] Edit: Ok, there's one review on gamefaqs, and it's from 2000. The dude loves it (9/10), and it's a long, thorough review with tons of detail about the game. Now, I really want to track it down. https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/snes/588260-college-football-usa-97/reviews/17273

RH and Splain, Back in the NA days, there were a couple of guys who did a youtube series called Brother Nights where they set out with the intention to review every NES game. Sadly, they didnt make it before calling it quits, but about halfway through their run, they began putting two games up against each other and reviewing them side by side, and determining a winner. So, a similar idea to what you guys are talking about. Anyway, just reminded me of those fellas. It was a good show, wish they had stuck it out longer.

I'll buy one. Or probably 2 or 3 to gift to buddies. Make it happen, homie. Like April O'Neil, you have our support.

Anyone wanna see my purple gannon?

Haven't logged in here in a while, but I have been keeping up with the progress on your site. And I've turned all of my gaming buddies on to it as well. It's been an amazing ride, and I wanted to wish you well on the final stretch. Thanks for the hours of awesome reading, homie.

Your description of the "creepy straight backed person lurching" in your direction reminded me of the horror movie 'It Follows.'

Indeed. Interesting conversation, but not exactly a movie I like returning to. Well, I only speak for myself, not anyone else. But some filmmakers can take stories with little action and make them compelling visually with techniques. I'm thinking Welles, Antonioni, Lynch, Hawks, some others. They can do things with the camera and settings to make a motion picture. Just spitballing here to demonstrate what I mean, taking the GGGR script, you could make one of the conversations take place in a car instead of a diner to have movement on the screen. The camera could show us the reflections of the actors' eyes and/or mouths in the rearview and/or vanity mirrors, and perhaps there would be a crack in the glass to symbolize the way his words are hurting the feelings of the other. In a scene such as when Spacey is angry, a close up could be used to accentuate his facial expression or his clenched fist. They could show the condensation beading down the glass of ice water in the diner when Pacino is swindling the rube to convey the heat and pressure he's feeling from the sales pitch. Or along that line, we could see a close up of Jack Lemon's brow as he sweats while stressing over his failure. These are the types of artistic avenues available in the motion picture medium which are not available on the stage for plays. GGGR as it is, is simply a straight translation of the play that doesn't utilize the motion picture medium. It's essentially a filmed play. It's still great due to the excellent script and world class actors involved, however, as I stated before. I'm just rarely thrilled about stage to screen translations. I'd rather see the play.

I always felt that this one didn't translate particularly well from the stage to the screen. Every performance is compelling, however, so it's well worth a watch. But there's no movement, no action, the settings are static, et cetera. They might as well have filmed the stage production because no effort was made to translate it into a motion picture. Excellent script, excellent characterizations, and top notch performances, made it an excellent play. But a stationary camera watching guys sitting down in an office or diner having conversations for 2 hours does not really lend itself well to the motion picture picture medium in my opinion. Edit: I rated it a 6