Jump to content

MagusSmurf

Member
  • Total Exp

    340
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Reputation

306 Excellent

About MagusSmurf

  • Birthday September 22

Recent Profile Visitors

866 profile views
  1. Yeah, I’d go with Superman 64. People know about it, it’s an official console release, it’s really bad, and its awfulness is interesting enough to be worth examining whereas Big Rigs is basically just a non-functional meme game.
  2. I don't think any of the first seven are amazing games so I guess? It does have its issues. The job/class system is not as good as FFV's despite releasing 3 years later. That's not too-damning in itself since not much manages to beat out FFV there anyways but yeah. I think this is the game where Dragon Quest's approach to characterization and party dialogue - or perhaps I should say their "non-approach" - being behind the times gets very blatant. IV and V had some clever ideas to make them still sort of work out there. Dragon Quest VI basically doesn't and the cast is pretty bland and unmemorable as a result. There are some neat touches to world building with NPCs but I'd easily trade it all for a likable party. The plot (never very strong to begin with) become super-enormously diffuse to the point of practically not existing after the first third or so and the job system isn't even accessible until then. If you want to adventure around through a bunch of Dragon Questy local medieval crises with competent gameplay and production values, Dragon Quest VI delivers. It's a good game. Great? Nah - but I'd also be saying that to any of the first seven games, at least for their original versions.
  3. Tales of Vesperia. Fun game. Shame about the story. Symphonia and Abyss superior.
  4. silly ign, Dragon Warrior V wasn't even on the NES, list is invalid. Dragon Warrior I in the top ten is pretty gross though. That game was already a dreadful fossil by the time the NES era wrapped up, let alone now. I guess this is part of the problem with letting things other than the actual quality/enjoyability of the game influence the list: it potentially lets awful but influential games claim a high spot. But that should be a red flag that something about your criteria and how you've made the list has gone dreadfully wrong, and not just go "this is fine."
  5. Mario 3 had enormous hype behind it, pretty much delivered on said hype, sold more than any other game on the console besides Mario 1 and Duck Hunt and then or now is overwhelmingly viewed as better than the former, has way more quality content than basically any similar game of the time, and remains compelling on replay thanks in part to all the secrets. Only real problem is that it’s a bit on the long side for a game with no saving but Warp Whistles help alleviate that. It’s pretty much been the consensus best game on the console ever since it launched, at least in the west.
  6. Oh hey, composer Koichi Sugiyama died. Thanks for all the music. I liked it, a lot of it was pretty good. Apparently you were kind of an ass about letting the good versions of your music get used in overseas releases of recent games? Hopefully your replacement is better there. In general wish you had been a better person to go along with your musical accomplishments. Oh well!
  7. If you want to argue it’s not a good fighting game then fine, whatever! but “Smash is not a fighting game” is just a dumb dated argument from years way back that basically nobody seriously holds anymore. That ship has sailed. Might as well argue Pokemon is not an RPG while you’re at it.
  8. Crono. Eight of the Noble Nine got in, so they gotta complete the set! (It definitely won't be Crono.)
  9. Nah, the height of arrogance is a few contrarians on a gaming forum pretending they’re the ones who understand that “NO REALLY GAMES DON’T AGE EVERYONE ELSE IS WRONG NO DEVELOPMENTS IN A 45+ YEAR OLD INDUSTRY COULD POSSIBLY MAKE US LOOK AT OLDER WORKS IN A DIFFERENT LIGHT.”
  10. good point. I suppose I should have said "games with Nintendo-owned IP" or something instead.
  11. I’ve lost most interest in Smash myself so fine for not liking the game (haven’t played this one myself) but arguing Smash isn’t a fighting game? Seriously? I thought I was beyond the times but I’d sort of believe you’re actually time-travel posting from like 2009 or something. And “with just a few specialized attacks per character?” I see. Confirmed for not having actually played the games.
  12. Nobody other than total psychopaths plays platformers for points, though. (I realize this probably includes many people at videogamesage but sorry, it’s true.) and since when do most action-adventure games even have points?
  13. SNES with Super Mario World and Mario Paint, followed by Super Mario All Stars a few weeks later.
  14. Nintendo's first-party games for DS are pretty WHATEVER. Metroid Prime Hunters, Phantom Hourglass, Spirit Tracks, Wario Master of Disguise, Kirby Mass Attack, Fire Emblem Shadow Dragon, Golden Sun Dark Dawn, and Star Fox Command? All pretty meh games. Kirby Squeak Squad is sorta fine but generally ultra safe and conventional. Yoshi's Island takes a few more risks and stumbles a good bit as a result. Neither come out looking good compared to those franchise's previous better games. New Super Mario Bros. is basically good I guess. Didn't care for the music, the 3D models in a 2D world are just kind of bad, and while the gameplay certainly didn't wow me, it was solid enough. Wario Ware Touched does what its supposed to and is fun in spurts. Partners in Time and Bowser's Inside Story are good but I don't find them especially memorable. The Advance Wars games are good but the Dual Strikes in DS feel overpowered while Days of Ruin has the opposite problem of minimizing the differences between COs. And I don't really care about Pokemon, Animal Crossing, Mario Kart, Brain Age, or Nintendogs at this point. Kirby Canvas Curse and Elite Beat Agents are the only ones I walked away from thinking were anything special. Admittedly I never played, uh, Super Princess Peach? But reviews indicate that wouldn't have made it either!
  15. The PS3 had a target on its back at least as far back as Sony's 2006 E3 press conference that got memed to hell (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRqKffIjCDU but if you were in gaming sites around then you probably know the most relevant lines by heart anyways) Aside from the price that was indeed a big issue (and most people really weren't that excited about Blu-Ray to make it sorta worth the price regardless), there was a perceived drought of really good games at the beginning. "PS3 has no games" was a meme for a couple years until MGS4 started turning things around. Which is kind of funny in retrospect given MGS4's reputation definitely isn't what it once was but it worked at the time. It was also behind the Xbox 360 in terms of online features. (Cheaper for what you got, granted, but when you're leading with FIVE HUNDRED NINETY NINE U.S. DOLLARS anyways it barely helps.) The PS3 ended up in a pretty good place and by the end it probably had better overall exclusives than the Xbox 360 (might be arguable depending on taste). Though despite it not really being weaker than the 360 AFAIK, western multiplatform games probably run worse on it in general because they targeted the 360 as the lead platform. I'd be skeptical of PS3 disappointment having carried forward much to the next generation though, since outside the data breach the biggest issues were mostly concentrated to the beginning of the console and by the time the PS4 was on the horizon people were more pissed at what Microsoft was planning with the One than silly things Sony had done a decade ago.
×
×
  • Create New...