Webhead123

X-Chickens.

Blame the quarter-hungry American publishers. In the Japanese release, the "Mutant Power" capsules are used up *first* and then drain your health instead of the other way around like we got.

So, if we're talking about Turtles in Time (Arcade) vs. X-Men (Arcade), then I would ultimately opt for X-Men. Up to 6-player co-op, the variety of mutant powers, "Welcome to die!" The thing is, I actually like TMNT IV on SNES a good deal better than the arcade version. Yes, they have lots of similarities but the Arcade game is a good bit shorter, has some less interesting bosses and doesn't have quite as much variety as the SNES game. If it was SNES TMNT vs. Arcade X-Men, then SNES wins without a doubt. But Arcade vs. Arcade, I have to give it to X-Men.

If this gets a digital release for $15, I'll pick it up. Otherwise...nope.

I know it's a Rare/XGS title so X-Box exclusivity is to be expected but...that's the biggest thing that's going to keep me from getting to play this game. Even with my eye-roll response to how they've "reimagined" poor Dark Queen, honestly all the other potential about the game had me kinda excited. I wasn't even against the exaggerated comic-style of the art direction. But unless this game gets ported decently to PC, PS4 or Switch...I'm just not gonna get to play it, since I don't own (and have zero plans to own) an X-Box One or Series X. Edit: Apparently, it *is* available on Steam. Well, that's good. I may have to pick it up after all.

Ages and Seasons are both on my short list. I'm trying to finish a couple other titles first but then really feel the urge for a classic Zelda adventure and told myself it's time to stop putting off those two. Always wanted to play them but didn't have a GBC back then, so it never happened.

I put down WoW about a year ago but I'm kinda feeling an urge to revisit again, since the new expansion has seen some significant reworks, plus the new story content which I've heard was pretty good.

I was torn between rating it an 8 or 9 but I gave it the benefit of the doubt and went with 9. It has/had some killer exclusives and the Dualshock continues to be one of the best, most intuitive controller designs around.

99% of sports games do nothing for me. And yet there is something so universally fun and accessible about Tecmo Bowl and Tecmo Super Bowl.

Oh yeah. Punch-Out's a good one. And Double Dragon 2. I owned and loved the original but always favored the sequel for the 2-player co-op with my cousins and, later, my younger brother.

A friend and I have discussed this topic multiple times in the past. With the trend for most modern games to deliver an "epic experience" and/or to entice you with an "endless gameplay loop", many such games just aren't very accessible for the person who can't or doesn't want to commit at least an hour or more to a play session to get any kind of sense of accomplishment. For various reasons, older generations of games tended to be much more plug-and-play, even down to the very logistics of simply booting up a game. On the NES, I can flick the power switch and be actually playing a game within 5-10 seconds. On PS4, it might take 2-3 minutes or more between waiting for the console to boot, launching the game, skipping intro cutscenes, navigating menus and loading save data. Anyway, there are a handful of games that I seem to reach for regularly when I want to get a game in but don't want to commit to more than 15-30 minutes. -Super Mario Land 1 & 2 come up often. I think because they are games that are nostalgic but which I didn't actually get to play much when I was younger. So, it's a combination of the retro feel with a game that still feels a little new to me. -Revenge of Shinobi & Shinobi 3 as well. Incredibly nostalgic but not games I got to play much as a youth, so they still feel fresh. -Castlevania, Contra, Doom (PC), Street Fighter II, Streets of Rage 2, Super Mario Kart, Super Mario World, Turtles in Time...all are games that I can fire up at any time and enjoy even just 5 minutes with. As for more recent games, I'll sometimes reach for Binding of Isaac, Dusk, Into the Breach. I used to spend a fair bit of time with online multiplayer games like Overwatch and Dead by Daylight, which fit that "drop-in, drop-out" niche but I don't frequent them much lately.

Maybe I'm being a little harsh. The art style itself doesn't look so bad. Some of it actually looks pretty neat. I suppose my hang up is that a) all the character models have a very "flat" look. Like they're cut-out paper dolls or something and b) the way they are animated is probably what's reminding me of a mobile game. That very "floppy-armed, exaggerated" look. I dunno. I'll probably still buy it. I suppose I just kinda wished they went for a pixel-art style instead...or maybe a more "Wonder Boy revival" style of hand-drawn.

So...this is a thing. On the one hand, hurray for a revival of the franchise. On the other hand...the entire graphic design makes it look like it was ported from a mobile game (was it?). Thoughts? Opinions? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F177-VTSGSM

Jr. Pac-Man was the version I got for 2600 and I loved it. Having previously played the Pac-Man port, Jr. Pac-Man felt like a huge improvement. I spent many hours with it.

How's the saying go?...If loving Tifa is wrong, I don't wanna be right...

Hoo boy! I really misread that sentence the first time! Just a little bit Freudian, maybe. I was just talking about Tifa... I remember our PC had trouble with the game, too, although I don't think I ever fully crashed it. But the framerates were pretty choppy, especially during the cutscenes and if I recall, the sound card had regular problems and would often cut out.

The answer was always Tifa. Yeah, I'm a shallow, shallow person.

5/10 for me but keep in mind a few things: 1) I didn't have a Playstation in the 90's, so my first experience playing this was through the PC port. 2) Even back then, the chunky "Playmobile" character models were kind of distracting in a bad way. 3) The setting being so drastically different from all previous FF games I'd played was actually a negative for me. 4) It arrived at a time when I was shifting a bit away from RPGs and more into action/strategy games. 5) I never finished the game, as a result of all the above considerations. So yeah, while I have a certain amount of what I call "indirect nostalgia" (because FFVII was all anyone talked about when it first came out), I don't have the kind of attachment to it that some others have. Going back to try to play it in more recent years, it felt *okay* but fairly cumbersome. I would much rather revisit IV or VI (in fact, that's what I'm currently doing). Also, am I the only person in existence who didn't like the Materia system? I mean, I appreciate the flexibility it gives the player but it just makes the game so much more tedious and complex to manage.

Now that you mention it, I think I remember that and I may have even pitched my own score. I know I didn't score below an hour. It was more likely around 90-100 mins or so. Sadly, I didn't record my completion time on Backloggery and NA is now gone.

I don't speed-run DKC and never took the time to learn it that way. Whenever I go back to it, I tend to take my time which usually results in a playtime of about 3-3.5 hours. I would say that's a fair brush for the average length of the game. But yeah, I could see someone who really knows the optimum run to be able to get sub-hour completion.

No arguments there! What a fantastic game! I need to go back and replay it.

Yes. You can't approach Zelda II the way you would approach any other game in the series. That wild disparity is what really kept it from fully clicking with me when I was younger. But spend a little time reading up on how the various new systems work and the game becomes WAY more approachable. It's still grindy in places and far from perfect but if you front-load some of that grind (before you get to the dreaded Death Mountain), the game becomes actually quite enjoyable. I dare say it's a game that I have no qualms about recommending be played with a guide or at least a tips-sheet. There is some "NES cryptic" about the game that can be annoying but otherwise it's much better than it usually gets credit for.

I haven't played them. I also haven't played Spirit Tracks, Phantom Hourglass, Four Swords or more than an hour of Twilight Princess and the Oracle games. Hence, I didn't rank them. And call it another unpopular opinion...but I actually kinda like Zelda II. Yes, it's the black sheep of the family but once I took the time to learn its systems and meet the game on its own terms...I actually kinda dig it. I was tempted to rank it even above Minish Cap but, for completely arbitrary reasons, I didn't. I don't mean to imply that I think Ocarina is objectively (or even subjectively) a bad game...but I find that (of the Zelda titles I have played) it is the one I least enjoy spending time with. I have more fun returning to Zelda II than Ocarina.