Statistics: Posted by morphinapg — Mon Feb 26, 2024 10:39 am
Statistics: Posted by AFlickering — Tue Sep 26, 2023 11:57 pm
Statistics: Posted by CosmicMonkey — Fri Aug 25, 2023 8:29 pm
Statistics: Posted by CosmicMonkey — Fri Aug 25, 2023 6:58 pm
Statistics: Posted by InvisioUS — Mon Aug 14, 2023 7:37 am
Statistics: Posted by Alsweider — Thu Jun 15, 2023 8:17 am
Statistics: Posted by CosmicMonkey — Mon May 15, 2023 4:27 pm
Statistics: Posted by Guest — Sat Aug 14, 2021 1:07 pm
You're missing the context. I myself ranked SMB1 a 95 on Criticker, an insanely high score, but that's largely because of what a landmark, pioneering game it is, the gold standard for its time. If that game came out today, I would rate it a 50.This is literally just one person. There are plenty of people I can find who also ranked Mario Bros as among the best game in the series such as RabbidLuigi and RGT below.Really, who? Kosmic, who used to hold the speedrun world record for both any% and all levels for SMB1, knows more about the game and mechanics than the developers themselves, and obviously has a huge soft spot for the title, recently released his tier lists for the Mario games, both for casual play as well as speedrunning.
iframe
He rated SMB1 at the bottom of his C-tier, the 5th lowest of the 18 mainstream Mario games. And note that two of the four games lower were from that same time period, namely the first Mario title on Gameboy, Super Mario Land, as well as the SMB1 sequel Lost Levels. He rated most later Mario games, 2D and 3D, much higher.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DJ-n0w_VgM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlJiJGmSJrY
All games that came much later in the respective timelines of their genres. Although I always thought Gimmick, while an excellent game, is painfully overrated for the hipster factor; few people had heard about it before Youtube, and fewer still have played the Japan-exclusive platformer late in the NES/Famicom life cycle.I could reference plenty of other NES games I think are extremely high quality such as Shatterhand, Ninja Gaiden, and Gimmick! that blow a lot of newer games out of the water.
Speedrunning tier lists are irrelevant to the discussion. Very few people who play games are speedrunning them.You're also ignoring the fact he made two tier lists - casual and speedrunning.
Bloodstained kind of sucked. You're also missing the point.Yet I can think of many recent games that Super Metroid is superior to. I sure as hell wouldn't rate something like Axiom Verge, Shantae, or Bloodstained over it. When I play these 3 games, I don't pretend they're nearly as good as Super Metroid. On that token, I can also think of a lot of people who'd argue Contra 3 is a better game than Cuphead. I don't think that's some widely held consensus.
WAT. I defy you to name me a single person who thinks CV1 is better than SCV4. I remember being on a Castlevania forum about 20 years ago in my early teens, where there were all sorts of bizarre opinions (calling CV2 the best in the series, Circle of the Moon the best Metroidvania, etc.), but two hot takes I never saw were anyone claiming CV1 was better than either CV3 or SCV4.Even then, I don't think it's not too uncommon to argue that CV1 is better than SCV4 or any of the Igavania's.
Right, because this is a strawman no one claimed. What was claimed, however, is that CV1 isn't as good in 2021 as it was in 1986.I also don't think any of those games make CV1 invalid or somehow a bad game in its own right.
So what? Some people still play Championship Edition, mostly due to nostalgia and/or habit. That doesn't mean Super Turbo isn't massively better.You say that as if people aren't still playing 64 when we've been having tournaments for the game as recently as 2019:
You're kidding, right? A large part of the reason Rondo is so beloved is that you get to play a second character who controls and plays completely differently than the standard Belmont with the Vampire Killer whip. That's almost like saying the original Street Fighter 2 would be just as fun if you were only allowed to pick Guile, and every other character was "expendable".This is true, but my main point is that simply adding content doesn't improve a game. Admittedly when I stated that the game was "designed around a specific set of mechanics" I was thinking specifically Richter and hadn't considered Maria. But I think this ironically proves my point in that something like Maria doesn't really elevate Rondo or make it better in any meaningful way. At best it's just amusing to plow through the game on easy mode as an underage girl, but I don't think the game would have suffered if she wasn't available. Hell, some versions of Rondo don't even have her which shows how expendable she is.
Because we had seen literal thousands of platformers across NES, Sega Master System, Genesis, SNES, TurboGrafx-16, MS-DOS, Commodore 64, and Amiga by the time Rondo came out? There was an awful lot to work with.I don't get how Rondo was "late" in the lifespan of 2D action platformers.
I've only played Shatterhand and some David Cage, but both of those are very much influenced by previous games. I can name you dozens of similar action platformers prior to Shatterhand, and Cage is basing his efforts off earlier point-and-click FMV games, minus the puzzles.I also don't buy the idea that games as a whole being inherently iterative. There's various examples of games that can't be defined as such. What are games like Umurangi Generation, Disco Elysium, Shatterhand, Among Us, Shadow of Rome, Klonoa, VA-11 Hall-A, Planescape, or whatever David Cage does supposed to be iterative of?
So you're repeating the exact same thing I wrote? And thus similarly pointing out how dumb the link is?By 2017, there already were plenty of notable retro indie games that came out such as Freedom Planet, Shovel Knight, Stardew Valley, Axiom Verge, Undertale, Broken Age, Rogue Legacy, etc. It's not like indie games weren't already making huge waves at this point. Indies didn't start becoming relevant in the last 4 years.
More strawmanning. No one is denying that the best games of the early to mid 90's aren't much better than the bad or mediocre games of modern times. But that's a stupid comparison. Compare the best of that time to the best of today, and in genres that were still relatively new in the early to mid 90's, there is massive progress and improvement i.e. the classic game has "aged".That said, I don't see why it's invalid to compare them to non-indies anyway. It's not like a lot of these games aren't within the same genre older games were. Comparing a Call of a Duty game to various 90's shooters like Quake or Half-Life is totally valid, for example. Triple A titles are a much bigger part of the industry than what most indies are so I don't think we should act like these comparisons shouldn't be made, especially if we're considering something as broad as "old game design trends vs New design trends". Frankly, there are many examples of what she says being true, which can even be said of various indie titles. We shouldn't act like stand out examples are the norm for indies and that they're all necessarily taking old design tropes and making them better.
Statistics: Posted by ShogunRua — Mon Apr 19, 2021 6:56 pm
I like the physics in Mario Bros because mobility is playing off of your momentum and a lot of the trajectory of your jumps function off of how you control that momentum. This makes mobility substantially more interesting than many games in the genre within and beyond the era it was released in. I won't make the case that it's perfect or better than future Mario games, but I will make the case it is better than many games years after within the same genre and on different systems.As for "great use of physics and momentum", SMB1 Mario feels terrible to abruptly change direction with, loses too much horizontal distance on his jump when he can't get enough running speed, and can't even turn around backwards. The screen permanently scrolls right, too.
ALL of these were problems either solved or vastly improved upon by Super Mario Bros 3 just 3 years later. Which is a vastly better game precisely because it iterates upon the initial gold standard set by SMB1.
Movement options? They were excellent, obviously, but the ones in the very next 3D Mario, Sunshine, were even better. Now, Sunshine was a rushed game which had its fair share of other problems, which is why a lot of people prefer SM64. However, it shows that even a masterpiece like SM64 can be improved through this iterative process.
Furthermore, DK64 and Banjo were very much part of that same era. A better comparison would be SM64 to Galaxy 1 and 2, and yeah, the latter two games feature a lot of improvements.
Yet I can think of many recent games that Super Metroid is superior to. I sure as hell wouldn't rate something like Axiom Verge, Shantae, or Bloodstained over it. When I play these 3 games, I don't pretend they're nearly as good as Super Metroid. On that token, I can also think of a lot of people who'd argue Contra 3 is a better game than Cuphead. I don't think that's some widely held consensus.Same here, obviously. However, when I go back and play Super Metroid, I don't pretend that it's nearly as great, without taking into account era, as Hollow Knight. Nor is Contra 3, as much as I've loved it since childhood, nearly as good as Cuphead.
You're right about this and I do think that was a bad example in hindsight. However, I do think that Mario Maker still retains a lot of the foundation of those older games and some could argue for preferring the old physics more.Oh man, the Mario Maker games and Mario 35 have very, VERY different physics and mechanics than the original SMB1, something that Kosmic has detailed at length. Just because they use the same 8-bit sprites doesn't mean the actual code underneath is remotely the same. They play and control very differently.
I don't disagree that World is larger, but SMB1's hacking community is not tiny at all. The game gets far more hacks than what most games do, let alone games from that era. I think most NES games wish they could have the size of SMB1's "tiny" hacking community.There is a very tiny community around SMB1 hacks.
There is, however, a very rich and exceptionally popular community to this very day around Super Mario World hacks, and the creations in that game rival or surpass what we see in Super Mario Maker 2. Again, SMW is yet another game that improved upon what was initially established in SMB1 as well as the hundreds upon hundreds of 2D platformers that preceded it.
Megaman 2/3 are often seen as being better games than the majority of the classic games that came after them. Megaman 1 itself is also seen as better than many titles after it, and in many cases that can be easily justified.Megaman 1, while a huge achievement for its time, is a flawed and mediocre game compared to even Megaman 2, let alone Megaman 3.
My point with referencing 3rd Strike is that it's an example of a game people stuck to despite multiple iterations coming after the fact. People preferred 3rd Strike's mechanics far more than the balance and user friendliness of its sequels. And there are MANY examples of this being true in the FGC for other games.But notably, not New Generation or 2nd Impact, which again proves my point. Nevermind how advanced in the lifespan of 2D fighters 3rd Strike or Super Turbo came out.
I have known people who claimed that, but admittedly that's an unpopular take. Even then, I don't think it's not too uncommon to argue that CV1 is better than SCV4 or any of the Igavania's. I also don't think any of those games make CV1 invalid or somehow a bad game in its own right. CV1 is still league's better than a lot of games that came after it.I literally have yet to meet a single person who doesn't think Castlevania 3 is a massive, massive improvement, in every way, over Castlevania 1. (Personally, I think SCV4, Rondo of Blood, and probably even Bloodlines are better than CV3, but there is at least some subjectivity there)
You say that as if people aren't still playing 64 when we've been having tournaments for the game as recently as 2019:Which built upon the far inferior, original Super Smash Brothers. And if it wasn't for Nintendo's hatred of Melee becoming, against all reason and expectation, a well-regarded competitive fighter, which they sought to gimp in Brawl, the series would have continued improving more and more.
I don't disagree with this but I'm just referring to them as an example of people who don't necessarily believe future games are necessarily better.Yeah, I knew a few people like that. They were insufferable hipster douchebags who knew about as little about gaming as the average modern-day gaming journalist with a hard-on for walking simulators.
This is true, but my main point is that simply adding content doesn't improve a game. Admittedly when I stated that the game was "designed around a specific set of mechanics" I was thinking specifically Richter and hadn't considered Maria. But I think this ironically proves my point in that something like Maria doesn't really elevate Rondo or make it better in any meaningful way. At best it's just amusing to plow through the game on easy mode as an underage girl, but I don't think the game would have suffered if she wasn't available. Hell, some versions of Rondo don't even have her which shows how expendable she is.Weird that you use Rondo of Blood as an example of "balance", as Maria is easy mode in that game, and her Guardian Knuckle is the most disgustingly broken move in Castlevania history, annihliating any boss in seconds.
Or that Rondo of Blood came out very late in the lifespan of 2D action platformers.
This is a valid way of viewing how genres evolve but I also don't think it's really useful in terms of evaluating games individually. A game can be seen as a "product of its time," but being a "product of its time" doesn't mean that it's better than what came before it. You also shouldn't assume what it does is worse than what came after it. Frankly, I feel the distinction of chronology is a moot point. Especially since most people aren't making this distinction when say "games aged badly". Which leads to another reason why I don't like the term - the term is overly vague and can mean so many different things that I don't think it's useful for discourse.The main difference here, and why you're missing the point is that you're simply looking at video games in terms of age. How many years have gone by since release.
I'm looking at "age" in a different way, namely how far along in a genre's lifespan was the game released.
So while SMB1 is 36 years old and SMW is 31 years old, SMW is a far more mature, advanced game made much further along in the development of 2D platformers, which is why it hasn't been obsoleted the way SMB1 has.
Meanwhile, Super Metroid is 27 years old, so technically "younger" than SMW, but in terms of the development of its genre, it's actually older and more primitive, as it was the first real Metroidvania, and the genre has seen so much improvement since.
By 2017, there already were plenty of notable retro indie games that came out such as Freedom Planet, Shovel Knight, Stardew Valley, Axiom Verge, Undertale, Broken Age, Rogue Legacy, etc. It's not like indie games weren't already making huge waves at this point. Indies didn't start becoming relevant in the last 4 years. I do think you make a valid case that she overgeneralizes modern games but I don't that's her main point anyway. Her argument is more on the fact that older games were still capable of doing impressive things and that the principles of good game design hasn't changed so much that older games should be outright discredited. Wagar isn't trying to say newer games are bad, but that we shouldn't think comparing newer games to older games is unfair. If something is seen as bad today, it can be seen as bad back in the day too. Which is something I agree with. If Super Metroid's design is "primitive," then something like Shantae or Axiom Verge are ancient, despite coming out many years later.The article suffers from being very vague and general, to the point of absurdity. There are literally hundreds of exceptions to his comments about modern games, and coming out in April of 2017, with the wealth of phenomenal retro indie games that were being released at that time (as well as 2 months after Hollow Knight came out), it's painfully out of touch, like he thinks modern gaming begins and ends with Triple A releases, and hasn't bothered to investigate any further than that.
Statistics: Posted by Velvet Crowe — Sun Apr 18, 2021 2:48 am
I don't really agree with this because plenty of people go back to play Mario Bros and think it's an astoundingly good game with great use of physics and momentum.And yes, you absolutely have to take into account what era a game was released in. If you put out the equivalent of Super Mario Bros nowadays, it would be considered a very average, simplistic platformer lacking mechanics, movement options, and enemies, with some wonky physics.
Mario 64 lives on as a game people still play all the time because its mechanics are top of the line and movement options are still consider the peak of the series 25 years after its release. Whereas a game like DK64 or Banjo, which had far more mechanics than Mario 64, are considered far weaker games that are more limited in what can be done with level design and speedruns.
Same here, obviously. However, when I go back and play Super Metroid, I don't pretend that it's nearly as great, without taking into account era, as Hollow Knight. Nor is Contra 3, as much as I've loved it since childhood, nearly as good as Cuphead.I personally go back and play plenty of SNES and NES games
Oh man, the Mario Maker games and Mario 35 have very, VERY different physics and mechanics than the original SMB1, something that Kosmic has detailed at length. Just because they use the same 8-bit sprites doesn't mean the actual code underneath is remotely the same. They play and control very differently.Hell, Nintendo even made Mario 35 and Mario Maker which both utilize that game's mechanics in creative ways
There is a very tiny community around SMB1 hacks.Not to mention the huge number of hacks that were made for the game years before that which maintained the game's core mechanics. If the game were released today, it may be overshadowed by other platformers but if we're judging the game based on its own merits I would still say it's pretty good based on my 2021 perception of game design.
Megaman 1, while a huge achievement for its time, is a flawed and mediocre game compared to even Megaman 2, let alone Megaman 3.a multitude of Megaman games
But notably, not New Generation or 2nd Impact, which again proves my point. Nevermind how advanced in the lifespan of 2D fighters 3rd Stike or Super Turbo came out.3rd Strike,
I literally have yet to meet a single person who doesn't think Castlevania 3 is a massive, massive improvement, in every way, over Castlevania 1. (Personally, I think SCV4, Rondo of Blood, and probably even Bloodlines are better than CV3, but there is at least some subjectivity there)classicvania,
Which built upon the far inferior, original Super Smash Brothers. And if it wasn't for Nintendo's hatred of Meelee becoming, against all reason and expectation, a well-regarded competitive fighter, which they sought to gimp in Brawl, the series would have continued improving more and more.Melee,
Yeah, I knew a few people like that. They were insufferable hipster douchebags who knew about as little about gaming as the average modern-day gaming journalist with a hard-on for walking simulators.Hell, there are people who actually think gaming got worse after the NES era.
Weird that you use Rondo of Blood as an example of "balance", as Maria is easy mode in that game, and her Guardian Knuckle is the most disgustingly broken move in Castlevania history, annihliating any boss in seconds.If I added extra mechanics to, say, Rondo of Blood such as an overpowered sub weapon or a really subpar level I'm not really making improvements to the game. You have to consider that a lot of games are designed around a specific set of mechanics and also have a semblance of pacing and balance around that.
The main difference here, and why you're missing the point is that you're simply looking at video games in terms of age. How many years have gone by since release.Rest of Post
The article suffers from being very vague and general, to the point of absurdity. There are literally hundreds of exceptions to his comments about modern games, and coming out in April of 2017, with the wealth of phenomenal retro indie games that were being released at that time (as well as 2 months after Hollow Knight came out), it's painfully out of touch, like he thinks modern gaming begins and ends with Triple A releases, and hasn't bothered to investigate any further than that.https://critpoints.net/2017/04/25/compa ... new-games/
For another perspective, here's an article on this topic.
Statistics: Posted by ShogunRua — Sat Apr 03, 2021 8:54 pm
Statistics: Posted by Velvet Crowe — Sat Apr 03, 2021 3:03 am