Sumez

One of the least memorable Ys games, kind of weird to release a "remastered" version so soon after the original release.

I thought Slain was pretty enjoyable, but it got repetitive extremely fast and never really recovered from that. It's worth playing, but not worth going out of your way for. It's nothing memorable unfortunately.

I beat the Ninth Sister in my first attempt, so I don't remember what's bad/hard/unfair about it? IIRC you don't even need to take her HP down to zero. Honestly, trying to deflect physical attacks never worked well to me. I played on Jedi Master (the second-highest difficulty) and the window for parries is still super huge, but outside of the lag already induced by my TV, it seems like you need to press the button quite a good while before the attack connects for it to count as a parry, and any later will make you take a hit. So to be safe, it's better to just press it early and simply block the attack in a worst-case-scenario. That said, I rarely relied on blocks at all, outside of blaster shots. The final boss was actually really hard to me at first, but after realizing that just sticking to dodging and also using jumping to get closer safely was much more effective than trying to wear down its stamina, it became way more manageable. For any non-"jedi" fight, abusing force powers is super effective. Especially the throw upgrade that allows you to push enemies away. It can disable huge groups of enemies, outright kill some weaker ones, and if there's an edge you can throw them off (which there often is), you can take them out without even fighting them. But even with the basic unupgraded "slow down" skill that you start the game with, you can get in free hits on any enemy type no matter how tricky they are. I agree with the earlier posts that claim Jedi Master still feels way too easy. Sure I died now and then, but none of the fights really had much of an impact, or felt like a challenge I needed to outwit. I considered increasing the difficulty to the max, but I never did. I had a feeling it would probably make the game a lot more frustrating than it should, because combat just isn't anywhere near as well designed as the Souls games which it for some inexplicable reason got a lot of comparisons to. In general I think I played extremely poorly, usually just mashing away mindlessly, and still made it through unscathed - you get more than enough healing stimpacks, and checkpoints are spread out very liberally. That said, I really thoroughly enjoyed the game. It feels like a return to the straight up, carefree design of PS2/GC era console games, similar to the Prince of Persia Sands of Time trilogy, etc. Something I never imagined I'd find myself nostalgic for. While it's kind of annoying that all the secrets of the game are mostly pointless (ponchos, paintjobs and buttons for your lightsaber? ok) I really appreciated how the designers made a point out of not making the game about grinding for gear and numbers like most modern games do. It's a completely skimmed experience, sticking only to the core elements they decided to base the game around, and not a bunch of other unnecessary AAA bullshit.

Dragon Warrior, being a US exclusive, feels like a way too coveted game to make a "super commons" list IMO. I've wanted a CIB copy for quite a while, and it's not easy to find.

What about games that are clearly inferior ports of games from other platforms? IMO stuff like Parasol Stars, etc. has no business on NES XD It's a slippery slope of course, as you also have stuff like NES Contra which might look inferior at first, but anyone into the series could tell you it's much better than the original. Wasn't Mike Tyson's the original?

I think at least half of the "debated NES games" are worth keeping in. Moreso than a lot of the games already kept in the list. Like, you can't have Ducktales 1 but leave out the clearly superior Ducktales 2. That said, I think the majority of the list is very good picks. A few games not mentioned, that I'd recommend. Some of them I'd consider classics, other bordering "hidden gem": Ninja Crusaders - Basically Ninja Gaiden with 1HKOs. Severely underestimated game IMO, and one of my favourites on the system. Misume Ga Tooru (FC) - Extremely well polished game. Not the best Natsume game on the NES, but probably the best looking one, and everyone should play it. Nazo No Murasamejou (FC) - Zelda as a mostly linear, fast paced ninja action game? Hell yes. Nightshade - Kind of hit or miss, but if you're into point n click adventure it's definitely worth including. A unique twist on the genre that designs its way around the lack of a savegame feature. As a result it's more open ended, allowing you to take on various different objectives right from the start so that you don't need to repeat the same actions too often. Code Name Viper - A really excellent Rolling Thunder clone (if you didn't play RT, think Shinobi 1 with contact damage), much better than the NES version of that game. Tiny Toon Adventures - Super classic, well done platform game from Konami. Why this isn't commonly considered a top NES game is a mystery to me. Gremlins 2 - This one is a classic to me. Just a really well done game with a memorable soundtrack. Arkista's Ring - A true hidden gem. It's a little on the easy side, but I think it feels like what Gauntled "should have been". Hell, I'd trash Gauntlet from the list in favor of this. In the case of Mega Man, kind of yeah. All 6 games are at least top 20 games in my opinion. If you need to eliminate one of them, I'd eliminate MM1, but I do hear a lot of people who also keep that one as their favourite. Definitely keep in MM4! Similarly I think all 3 NG games are absolutely top tier. I can see 2 feeling like a copy of the first (it focuses more on stage design and gimmicks, but otherwise plays largely the same) - but NG3 is drastically different from the first two games. Vertically scrolling stages, no enemy respawns, completely altered moveset, etc. It might look similar based on screenshots, but when you play it you can feel the difference immediately.

That's not what Ninja Gaiden does. I mean, if you use a continue you lost the game, so even being sent back to the beginning of the stage is a mercy - CV3 is a long game so it takes a bit more training, but eventually you'll learn to beat it without using continues, it's not as hard as people some times say. And fortunately the last stage is really short, so just take it as a good chance to practice it! Anyway, for Dracula's final form, you can cheese it pretty easily by standing in one place and using subweapon attacks to damage him. The worst part is really his first form. Ninja Gaiden is really devious because normally any death will only send you to the last checkpoint, but losing just a life against the final boss will send you to the start of the entire stage. It feels like a bug, but it's intentionally kept in to up the stakes (and the sequels kept it, too) - I think it's really cool.

And they even toned it down after the first trailer of the game. Changed a lot of things that were just straight up copies of Twin Peaks. It's kind of funny to compare with the finished game. Deadly Premonition really is a masterpiece in its own sense. I hate hearing it "dismissed" as a "so bad it's good game" - it has a lot of genuine quality, and a majority of its quirkiness is obviously intentional.

What would be the point of not considering them NES games? I'm trying to gauge the train of thought here, but I can't think of any reason to say a game that plays on the NES isn't an NES game. FDS games might be more ambiguous, since they are still running on the NES, but require a peripheral. But then again, so does Duck Hunt.

Not saying MM11 is "NES style", I'm saying it feels like a real Mega Man game. Of course those feel like similar statements, but I do agree that 11 moves the series "forward" in a very subtle manner, but it doesn't keep it from feeling like the classics. 9 and 10 look the part of course, being modeled largely after genuine NES graphics. But outside of that I think they feel distinctly different from the original NES Mega Man games, going for an approach more similar to what Battle Kid(!) is doing. I wouldn't say they are bad games, but I'm a pretty huge Mega Man fan, I love all six games on the NES, and 9 and 10 just don't really do anything for me. The level design seems to break all the "rules" set by the originals, while 11 just "gets it". In case of "something new", I'll admit I'm not a fan of the double gear system in MM11. I don't think it adds anything to the game. On the other hand, it really doesn't break it anywhere like I imagined it. It's not really possible to abuse it anywhere near as hard as I feared.

Maybe you are a Mega Man fan? I feel like this is the first real classic Mega Man we've gotten since MM6 (even 7 and 8 feel a bit strange). It really understands what made the classic NES games fun, and it doesn't rely on frustrating trial-and-error level design like the two Inti games (MM9 and 10). The only issue I have with it is that the stages run a little too long, but I really enjoyed it for feeling so much like Mega Man.

(not the cabinet, but the game)

Most shooters count it as a death. Double K.O. is a genuine scoring strategy in most shoot'em ups with checkpoints and no looping (like Pulstar, etc.) Cash in the score bonus for killing it, respawn at the last checkpoint, and repeat. (Mr.) Gimmick! is a cool example that allows you to run around and often kill yourself after the boss dies, and it'll still move on to the next stage without losing any lives. Not sure what happens if you kill yourself right before the boss dies. It should be possible, so it would be interesting to try.

If only the scoring system wasn't inherently broken Mega Man with actual scoring could be kinda cool.

What I was trying to make clear is that strong monsters isn't that. It's the only way to really play the game IMO.

I had a serious moth problem at my old apartment, that took years to neutralize. I occasionally still find tracks of them trying to inhabit a bunch of older hardware I've had stored for a while. Fortunately they never had the chance to invade the games.

The fact that hypnosis is hard to believe doesn't mean it's not real. It's a perfectly proven form of therapy. Of course, I guess it comes down to what exactly you're discussing. There's a broad spectrum of movie/cartoon hypnosis that obviously isn't real, but honestly that kind of stuff is a pretty common deviance in fiction. It's no different to putting horns on viking helmets or hacking the pentagon in 10 minutes by typing really fast.

Yeah, subjective takes on games is what makes it all interesting. I'm just sour because people often don't realise that several of the later NES MM games are better

I recall a few occurances of that happening before. The Shining of course is famous. Didn't The Exorcist have something similar? I'm sure there's a list somewhere, on tvtropes or something.

Lol, that's an interesting definition of "hidden gems". Well, I guess to some people anything other than Mario and Zelda are hidden. Hagane has really been expensive for ages. I bought mine a long time ago, and bought the Japanese one because it was the only one I could find cheap even then.

Dragon Quest 11 is amazing. Did you remember to enable the super strong monsters draconian challenge? It sounds like some kind of challenge mode for experts to do on subsequent playthroughs, but the game really feels like it's balanced for it, and I often hear people complain about combat feeling way too easy and pointless playing on "default".

Oh I've had the DC version for quite a while. But nothing tingles me like a real cartridge.

I'm guessing only American variants count? Because these seem to leave out every non-American variant.

Castlevania and Mega Man both absolutely intends for you to use just your whip or buster for said bosses as a valid approach. Death is actually a really fun battle if you learn to fight it. It just isn't the only way to approach it. They knew what they were doing. They wanted to give players an easier way through the game. Like I said earlier, these are games intended to be played over and over and over again, so they wanted to give people multiple approaches and ways to challenge themselves. Yeah, in my experience it's a very unpopular "opinion" in some communities, and I'm glad to see other people here on the same page. I think people are reacting like someone is telling them how to play (or not to play) a game, which is a bit of a misunderstanding. I'm really just trying to outline the difference between getting a game over, and not getting a game over. If it didn't make a difference, why would it be there?

That's why I'm talking coalitions. It's a pretty common way to form a democratic government. Of course I don't know if anything in American law actually prevents it, but from what I'm told it's not possible to form one in the US.