Secret of Mana Remake

[Arkhan Asylum]

The western world is collectively bitching up a goddamn storm over a like 1.5 minute trailer, because that's what the internet does best.

me on the other hand:

"Fuck yeah, it comes out on my birthday and you get tiger suits if you preorder. Sold."


The internet has turned gamers into dumbfucks

[Gredler]

looks cool to me, of course I'd prefer sprites/hand drawn, but this art does not look bad. I loved the original so much that it has big shoes to fill, and considering how bad sword of mana was compared to final fantasy adventure, I am a bit skeptical. I doubt it's the same team in any capacity, so thats probably not an apt comparison, but their remakes and updates have been hit (DS remakes) and miss (PC/mobile ports of FFVI and actually secrete of mana)

That being said, barring terrible reviews and do not buy warnings I will likely get this if for no other reason but to encourage more development in this franchise or possibly a legal playable us version of 3.

[Arkhan Asylum]

Try Adventures of Mana, which is a remake of FFA done just like this.


people commenting on how doofy shit looks didn't look at the manual for SOM.

It was all 90s claymation shit that looked goobery as hell, lol

[NecroPhile]

I think it looks okay.  If they do a physical version for Vita, sign me up.

Though I'm not a graphics whore and can live with it as is, my biggest complaint is that the graphics are low end; it looks like a PSP game at best.  Good graphics aren't required for a game to be fun, of course, but if they rushed and half-assed the graphics, there's a good chance they fucked up elsewhere too.

[SignOfZeta]

Just because it says "mana" on it doesn't mean you have to buy it.

[Dicer]

The fact they are skipping the Switch is really mind boggling to me...I don't much nostalgia for it so it doesn't bother me, just kinda stupid.

[Arkhan Asylum]

Since SOM is my favorite of the series, I feel excitedly obligated to buy and play it.   

I don't get why they skipped the switch though.    Seems stupid since Switch has a Mana compilation on it.

[SignOfZeta]

Just to be clear, this is a famously gorgeous famously 2D game being remade with 10 year old 3D graphics and you actually *want* to buy it? Not to play it, right? Is there some crazy "hot coffee" trick for it? Does it come with an upscaled SFC ROM?

I liked Secret of Mana a lot but this thing looks like Falcom made it for PSP in 2004 and while that is actually a compliment in the eyes of some people I'm not using it that way.

[o.pwuaioc]

people commenting on how doofy shit looks didn't look at the manual for SOM.

It was all 90s claymation shit that looked goobery as hell, lol

I didn't play the art from the manual.

I'm with Zeta. It's fugly graphics, and from what little dialog I heard, the voice acting stinks, too. I'll be sticking with the original.

[Gredler]

Try Adventures of Mana, which is a remake of FFA done just like this.

I bought it on Android, but I have still not taken the time to hook a controller up to any of my devices, and never got past the initial tiger fight even. Is it on any other platforms, or how did you hook up a controller? My ps3 controller efforts have failed, and I always end up saying screw it.

people commenting on how doofy shit looks didn't look at the manual for SOM.

It was all 90s claymation shit that looked goobery as hell, lol

I disagree, I LOVED the claymation stuff of that time frame (earthbound did it too). It's very endearing to me. In fact this version's art style I think hearkens closer to the clay models than to the sprite work from the original.

this thing looks like Falcom made it for PSP in 2004

I almost want to put up some comparison shots. This looks better than any falcom 3d game I've seen. I am not sure what you're referring to; mybe from 2004 is hyperbolic. I recently started trying to play Trails of Cold Steel and that was MUCH rougher than this assume-ably early trailer.

I don't get why they skipped the switch though.    Seems stupid since Switch has a Mana compilation on it.

I would imagine they did not initially plan the platform to be a sku, but I would be VERY surprised if this doesn't stumble onto switch eventually. Perhaps Sony funded a chunk of this, since it's only Sony and PC (some other games have been like this recently, as well). I would be willing to bet this is a timed exclusive and they are not messaging that in fears of cannibalizing their own sales. I am currently thinking "yeah maybe I'll get both ps4 and vita versions for cross save and playing off and on tv", but if they said switch I'd buy it on that platform for sure since I would not need to buy two copies for the same functionality; and as we've discussed I am pretty sure the Switch version would not be graphically inferior to PS4 in any way.

I'm with Zeta. It's fugly graphics, and from what little dialog I heard, the voice acting stinks, too.

I am really surprised to hear the discontent with the graphics. I am probably in the graphics snob crew, and I have very little issue with this. Maybe I am just thankful they didn't mess up the sprites attempting to HDify them like they did when they ported FFVI and V; or maybe I am just really digging the callback to the claymation style of the characters.

If I were being critical of the game I would say the rocks are lower detail because of the way they were constructed; they modeled out each rock rather than creating a model of rocks, so the density and # of rocks have reduced significantly from the original.

The water "shader" (i.e. alpha plane of blue with some white streaks, just a texture with no refraction) also looks worse than the original. It was nice seeing the rocks and detail below the water refract (hand drawn detail at the time, that could have been recreated with a shader today), but I am hopeful the water shader improves before release.

Flamey's texel density on its wings is disappointing, more texture real estate should have been contributed to the wings because they look blurry in relation to the rest of the scene.

The biggest glaring issue I see is the mapping on the mossy stone blocks; the seam on the corner does not look intentional or by design.

Overall though, I still think it's better than their other ports and it captures the feel of the game well.

I'll buy it, like I said, barring any crazy bad reveiws.

[Arkhan Asylum]

Just to be clear, this is a famously gorgeous famously 2D game being remade with 10 year old 3D graphics and you actually *want* to buy it? Not to play it, right? Is there some crazy "hot coffee" trick for it? Does it come with an upscaled SFC ROM?

I liked Secret of Mana a lot but this thing looks like Falcom made it for PSP in 2004 and while that is actually a compliment in the eyes of some people I'm not using it that way.

I want to play it.  I want to see what all of the tunes are reimagined like, and I want to see if there's new dialog or nostalgia feelies for it.  I want to see how flying around on Flammie is in 3D, and I am hoping the battle system is fun in 3D.

plus, it's going to be on the vita, so I can play it while I poop.

The voice acting sounds stupid, but it's not like it's new.  If SOM on SNES had voice acting, it would have sucked.

I was happy with Adventures of Mana for all the nostalgia feelies, and the tight gameplay.  It was also more fun than Sword of Mana.  That game sucked so bad.   Forcing myself through that game was a pain.

[Michirin9801]

I think it looks fine, yeah it's not quite as detailed as it could have been, I mean, it looks kinda like a Wii game blown up into HD, but it looks cute and I like it! Besides, I'm quite fond of 6th-gen level 3D graphics~

My only experience with the Mana series was Final Fantasy Adventure, which made me feel like: "I'd rather play Link's Awakening instead" and thus didn't go very far in it, and then I've played Sword of Mana, which looked GORGEOUS but it's just bleh... Needless to say, I also didn't go very far in it... I want to play Secret of Mana eventually, but I'm doing ~98% of my gaming on the 3DS these days, because I can play it on the bus and in college, and I spend very little time at home these days...

I wouldn't mind playing this version if I could, but if I were to choose between it and the SNES one, I'd pick the original easily... Yeah, I like these graphics, but nothing beats good pixel art! Either way, good on them for remaking it!

[Medic_wheat]

Nooooo no nope.

Vividly reborn my ass

Okay there is taking a 2D game and making it 3D sure okay.


But piss poor art direction is what this is. It's not even that they went 2D that bothers me. It's that there appear to be zero effort for design, character models or art direction that imminently turned me off as a potential audience.

They so easily could have don't a nice cell shaded look with the character designs from Koichi Ishii

[Arkhan Asylum]

Sword of Mana was a fucking trainwreck.   Easily the most disappointing GBA purchase ever.  Even Lunar's remakedowngrade for GBA was better than that boring, slow ass progression/stale boss battle mess.

but, I'm not 100% sure I'd say LA is a better choice than FFA.   They're different games, really, and for predating LA by 2 years, it did some things better since it was trying to be an ARPG and Zelda never has been one of those.   

The combat in FFA is objectively more interesting because of the weaponry options.   Link may have subitems at his disposal, but he's never swinging an axe or a chain whip around. 

I also think FFA had way better music overall.   There was so much variety, and so many really memorable tunes.

Outside of Marin's tune, most of LA's music isn't very memorable.   

Lets not even count the rediddled typical Zelda themes. 

Anyone who played FFA will find themselves humming the overworld music or the theme song randomly, years after they have touched the game.

FFA also had a better sense of adventure, and all those senses of urgency.     LA just boils down to some pudnut that can't steer a boat running around collecting instruments while Mr. Owl tells him how many licks it takes to not get to the center of Marin because Link never gets any.

and then he wakes up from his wet dream (hah), and whatever.   It's a great game but Link is basically a useless dipshit that accomplishes fuckall lol.

[CrackTiger]

I remember when Tengai Makyou 360 got flack for its models all those years ago and this looks like step backwards from that.

Hopefully it's fun for SoM fans, but I don't understand the appeal of making 3D versions of classic pixelart games. Ziria 360's main draw was "the worlds first HD anime".

[crazydean]

Hopefully it's fun for SoM fans, but I don't understand the appeal of making 3D versions of classic pixelart games.

Yes! I would love to see early 3D games remade into something worth of putting on a modern display, but 2D games are fine just the way they are.

I played the remastered FFIX last year and loved it! I'd love to see more remastered games from the PS1 and especially N64. The Wind Waker on Wii U was great! But, I don't think the old stuff can be topped. For me, the 16-bit era was the peak of 2D gaming, and any change is a change for the worse.

[Michirin9801]

Sword of Mana was a fucking trainwreck.

Sounds harsh, but I can't disagree there...

but, I'm not 100% sure I'd say LA is a better choice than FFA.   They're different games, really, and for predating LA by 2 years, it did some things better since it was trying to be an ARPG and Zelda never has been one of those.

You're absolutely correct that they're different, but they play kinda similar, and I played Link's Awakening first, so I was more used to its buttery-smooth gameplay when I tried out FFA...
Final Fantasy Adventure would have probably been great if you wanted to play a Zelda game on the Game Boy before Link's Awakening came out, but once it did, I'd argue that it makes FFA feel outdated in comparison... (Unless you're specifically looking for an Action RPG)

Also, if you go into Zelda expecting it to be an ARPG, you're just doing it wrong... Zelda has never even TRIED to be an ARPG, it just kinda-sorta looks like one, the closest Zelda ever came to being an RPG was in Adventure of Link, and while that game had some really neat ideas they were very poorly executed and "held back by NES limitations" as they said (Yeah right...)

The combat in FFA is objectively more interesting because of the weaponry options.   Link may have subitems at his disposal, but he's never swinging an axe or a chain whip around. 

I also think FFA had way better music overall.   There was so much variety, and so many really memorable tunes.

Outside of Marin's tune, most of LA's music isn't very memorable.   

Lets not even count the rediddled typical Zelda themes. 

Anyone who played FFA will find themselves humming the overworld music or the theme song randomly, years after they have touched the game.

First of all, there's no such thing as "Objective", EVERYTHING is subjective, there are no "Truths", there are only Perspectives, even science is always changing because we learn new things and have to adjust or scrap the older knowledge that contradicts it...

But the one thing that should be consensus by now is that the most subjective thing of all is taste in music... The song you linked is fine, but in my book Link's awakening soundtrack is anything but unmemorable, because well, I remember all of it...
(Although the fact that it's mostly recycled from older Zelda titles helps, but still, I distinctly remember their Game Boy renditions, as well as its original tunes so my point stands)
I wouldn't exactly call it one of the best soundtracks on the Game Boy, but it was perfectly fine for what it was trying to be...

Also, having different weapons doesn't make combat more interesting for everyone, case in point, Classic Castlevania vs. Metroidvania...
I know a lot of people LOVE the Metroidvania games to bits, but I don't, and I think Egoraptor put it best when he compared Metroidvania to eating a bag of chips and Castlevania 1 to enjoying a nice high-class dessert...

The point though is that in the Metroidvania games you have a load of weapons, a load of equipment and a load of abilities which enable you to explore parts of the castle which you couldn't before, that is perfectly fine, but in Classic Castlevania you were given your whip, the items and your guts to get through a pre-determined challenge, but you weren't able to get through it because you got a better weapon or because you leveled Simon up so that he could get strong enough to face that challenge, no YOU got better as the player, and was able to get through things that you couldn't before because you have skills now that you didn't have before! In my opinion that's WAY more satisfying than getting a better weapon so that you can now defeat monsters more easily than you could before...

I know this was a tangent, but I only went there in order to better illustrate my point, and the way this applies to Zelda is that Link doesn't need to swing an axe or a chain whip around to make combat more interesting, it's not the different weapons which are gonna do that, it's the game design which will, and for what it's worth Link's Awakening's got that in spades!

Granted, if you feel more satisfied about getting to use different weapons that's perfectly fine, and it's not like I wouldn't welcome it in a Zelda game, but bloating the game in order to make it "deeper" is not going to make it automatically "better"...

FFA also had a better sense of adventure, and all those senses of urgency.     LA just boils down to some pudnut that can't steer a boat running around collecting instruments while Mr. Owl tells him how many licks it takes to not get to the center of Marin because Link never gets any.

and then he wakes up from his wet dream (hah), and whatever.   It's a great game but Link is basically a useless dipshit that accomplishes fuckall lol.

And guess how many f***s I give about that?
The story in Link's Awakening (or pretty much any Zelda game for the matter) is completely inconsequential, what matters is the gameplay, that's what ALWAYS mattered, and when it comes to top-down action games on the Game Boy, it's VERY hard to top Link's Awakening on the gameplay, and if I hadn't made it clear enough yet, FFA doesn't...

I don't need urgency to enjoy my games, it's not about the goal, it's about the journey!
As for the whole "sense of adventure" thing, I don't know about FFA (as I said, I haven't gone far in it), but I could 'break sequence' more than once in Link's Awakening, and there isn't a lot in gaming that gives off better a "sense of adventure" than dungeoning out of the intended order...

[Michirin9801]

Hopefully it's fun for SoM fans, but I don't understand the appeal of making 3D versions of classic pixelart games.

Yes! I would love to see early 3D games remade into something worth of putting on a modern display, but 2D games are fine just the way they are.

I played the remastered FFIX last year and loved it! I'd love to see more remastered games from the PS1 and especially N64. The Wind Waker on Wii U was great! But, I don't think the old stuff can be topped. For me, the 16-bit era was the peak of 2D gaming, and any change is a change for the worse.

I agree, but I always welcome remakes if they're good (even if not as good as the originals) if it means that more people are gonna be able to experience the games, heck, if anything a remake could raise more awareness about the originals which could lead to more people experiencing them! I mean, how many people haven't played Rondo of Blood because of the PSP remake? Sure it will never be as good as the original, and it's kind of ugly as sin, but at least it had the decency of including a fully-localised version of the PC engine original, so that's great!
Best-case-scenario a Remake could even replace the original as the definitive version (Super Mario Allstars, Metroid Zero Mission and Dragon's Curse come to mind)
Not like that will happen with Secret of Mana, but it's still something that happens sometimes...

Also, I second the "Remake early 3D games" thing! I'd love nothing more than a Super Mario 64 remake which did the original justice (unlike the DS one)
And apparently the Crash remakes have been a success so hopefully Activision will let Vicarious Visions remake the first 3 Spyro games as well!

[SignOfZeta]

The problem isn't that the voice acting is bad. The problem is that it HAS voice acting. It probably has loads of it and anything else that takes your time and just has you passively staring at the screen. Most things in the game will probably take longer than they did in the original. It probably has fucking TUTORIALS out the ass.

And I bet the NPCs are still all useless.

Secret of Mana was STATE OF THE ART when it came out. State of the art in a higher art form, IMHO (one that lacks a third dimension) and this port is a sad sack example of Unity grade fodder.

I think maybe you don't really understand WHY you liked SoM, or maybe I don't. I guess there are two types of Mana fans and I'm not really the one who likes anything after SD3 including this cash grab.

BTW, HD remakes of PS1 originals sounds interesting. FFIX, sure, but I'd rather Cave's Touge series were redone, Touge Max G specifically. Playing it today the ONLY problem that masterpiece has is shitty shitty shitty graphics.

SoM's biggest issue was that it glitched pretty often. I didn't need this.

Please do enjoy it though.

[Michirin9801]

The problem isn't that the voice acting is bad. The problem is that it HAS voice acting. It probably has loads of it and anything else that takes your time and just has you passively staring at the screen. Most things in the game will probably take longer than they did in the original. It probably has fucking TUTORIALS out the ass.

And I bet the NPCs are still all useless.

Yeah sure, unfortunately modern games "require voice acting" these days (a load of bollocks if you ask me) and I'm not too fond of "English Dubs" either, but I wouldn't really mind it if it was good (or if it were in Japanese with English subtitles, at least I wouldn't be as bothered by it in a language that I'm not as familiar with)
As for the rest, we won't be sure of it until either the game is out, or it's confirmed in previews...

No, I tell you what the real problem is, it's that they're remaking a game that doesn't need to be remade...
The original still looks great, It still sounds great, and I'll bet it still plays pretty damn well too! But well, I haven't played it yet so I can't comment on that... (I'll get to it eventually, I just really don't have the time and patience to be putting into big RPGs at the moment, and if I did I'd just try to finish my business with Dragon Quest VIII)

But just because the game doesn't need to be remade, it doesn't mean that they shouldn't remake it... Yes, remaking early 3D games would be a better idea, that's quite hard to argue with, but if they want to remake this, then by all means they should do it!

"But they should do it better than this" True... But I'll bet no matter what they did you'd still prefer the original...
Here's the thing, this remake isn't for you, it's for a new generation, they're taking a game which you already enjoyed, which nobody is going to take away from you (probably), and they're presenting it in a new way which some folks might find more appealing!

"But this 3D art isn't as good as the pixel art from the original" Agreed whole-heartedly! But that's us, and not everybody is going to agree, and that's just how life is... (I still think it looks cute though!)

SoM's biggest issue was that it glitched pretty often.

Well, that's news to me...

[Arkhan Asylum]

...

See, I tend to look at games for their entire package, as opposed to "oh it fulfills my need for top down hack and slash, fuck the story."     

Back then, we had to do this shitty thing where we had to pay for stuff, so we had to carefully evaluate which things we bought so we didn't fuck ourselves and ruin our month until we could save up for another game by not eating lunch and pocketing our lunch money.    You are basically emulating/freeloading most of this stuff now, so you're kind of lucky.

When you're standing there with like 50$ as a kid and you are like OK, I can get this SNES game, or these two gameboy games, you have to really make sure you're making the right decisions in life.   Otherwise you end up buying shit like Wizards and Warriors + Castlevania Adventure while passing on like Joe and Mac or something, and then you feel like a fucking moron after you realize what you've done.

If we needed a cheap fix for an action game or something, we'd either borrow games, or rent crap.   If you were getting a game that took like >4 hours, it better have some sort of interesting story.

I was personally a little disappointed with LA's limp ass ending.   All that work for such a stupid ending.   After Link to the Past, I thought there'd be a better ending. 

Anyway,

I think you misunderstand the "sense of urgency".   I mean to say, there are times in the game where you do things like A) fall off a cliff because you're being chased by a villain B) fall out of an airship C) are rescuing someone that's been kidnapped.   

There's suspense, and surprises.   Not everyone makes it out alive.  It feels a bit more serious.   

Zelda has that urgent "save zelda, get the golden doritos and stop ganon" thing, but it's hardly ever urgent really.  You have time to put bees in jars and release them and watch them murder platemail'd knights, and you can sit there playing rupee games and cutting the grass in Hyrule looking for loose change to buy more crap.   The big bad guy basically just stands there until Link shows up to whoop his ass.   If he were a little more proactive, I don't think Link would be able to do anything to stop the guy.

The most urgent thing in LA is watching dopey crash the boat.  The rest of the game is basically you dicking off in a fever dream on an island, printing out pictures at the photo booth while you run around gathering instruments so a skywhale can tell you some LSD riddle and fly away while you float around like an asshole at the end of the game.    lol.

Also, Zelda has always been an adventure game, but the world is always a bit small feeling.   Even Link to the Past, the crown jewel.   

I think Zelda II has the biggest population of any Zelda.   In Zelda 1, you're talking like, a population of 6 people?  They all live in caves and are old toothless goons.   There's old dudes living in the dungeons.  They're all insane.

Link to the Past has what, 10 people?  There's one goddamn village in the entire game basically, and a few stray houses.   The entire world could probably fit in a Super Walmart.   

compare this to a game like FFA where you go places.  There's whole cities you run around in.   It feels more world-like as a result. 

also in FFA, the fact that different weapons exist and are sometimes required or make certain parts more convenient does in fact make the combat in a game more interesting than just swinging the sword around or using the boomerang.    You get different speeds, effects, special attacks, and range of motion.  That tradition has carried on through all of the Mana games.   It is part of what makes them what they are. 

Zelda's combat isn't bad.  It's just a bit more straightforward.  You're Link, the pantsless sword wielding dork that sometimes has to use a specific item one time to kill a boss because "brilliant game design".   

As much as I like Zelda, it is really easy to make fun of the entire formula in those games.   

Why do big bad monsters live in dungeons with a fucking item that can murder the shit out of them ALSO INSIDE THE DUNGEON.    Who put the fucking maps and compasses in there?    Why is there a BIG KEY to open the chest to get the treasure?   If the monsters just guarded the items themselves, Link would be fucked and evil would triumph.

and, yeah, LA has a lot of rehashed tunes.   That's part of why there aren't too many really standout tunes in that game.   Heard em already.   It's a very long soundtrack listing with not a lot of standout tunes.   Some of them barely count as songs.  They're more like little jingles.

Don't get me wrong though, LA was some 10/10 shit somehow despite goofy "why do we like this" thoughts.   

I beat that game probably 50 times as a kid between the regular and stupid ripoff DX version that fucking did nothing but take my money for no reason because you can do that stupid color dungeon on an OG gameboy anyways.

It's just not great of a tale/adventure as FFA if you really sit down and compare the two.   

FFA is a much more serious, kinda depressing story. 

The problem isn't that the voice acting is bad. The problem is that it HAS voice acting. It probably has loads of it and anything else that takes your time and just has you passively staring at the screen. Most things in the game will probably take longer than they did in the original. It probably has fucking TUTORIALS out the ass.

If there's no JP option, fuck.  That will suck.   the Jonathan Taylor Thomas voice actor guy for Randy is lame.

And I bet the NPCs are still all useless.

I hope they are.

Secret of Mana was STATE OF THE ART when it came out. State of the art in a higher art form, IMHO (one that lacks a third dimension) and this port is a sad sack example of Unity grade fodder.

I think maybe you don't really understand WHY you liked SoM, or maybe I don't. I guess there are two types of Mana fans and I'm not really the one who likes anything after SD3 including this cash grab.

I like SOM for alot of reasons.  I played it a lot as a kid.   I remember using my child-age privilege to cry and whine until my uncle would let me borrow it.  I probably ruined his weekend with his friends, lol.  Woops.   

The environments are still some of the best I've seen in a game basically ever.   The music shits all over a lot of things, and the story + gameplay itself was pretty amazing at the time.     

I fully expect to be disappointed in the music much like how SD3's music fucking blew compared to SD2, but I will still listen anyways.   The percussion is probably going to be weak.  SOM's percussion was over the top.

I want to fly around in this 3D and goof around like I did on SNES.   I am hoping the flying portion is awesome.   I used to just fly in circles and swoop down and do this thing where I'd randomly land somewhere and see where I went.

I want to see Matango in 3D.   I'm curious how some of the shrines will look, and if we will still see goofy shit like SHOOTING YOURSELF ACROSS THE PLANET IN A FUCKING CANNON.

I'm aware that this isn't state of the art stuff now, so I am OK with getting a revisit.   I'm not optimistic.  I am just excitedly curious.  I want to beat the shit out of rabites and see that stupid scene where you're going to be cooked.

I hope Primm still comes shufflefucking her way in to save me. 

I basically just want to see how all those scenes turn out in 3D.    If there's no JP voice option though, jesusfuck that's gon be baaaaaaad.

Everyone making fun of the new "kawaii chibi" stuff is an asshat though.

The original game was like that too.   Look at Popoi.   Look at the rabites.   The mushbooms have hearts on their heads.

Look at the fucking ducks with army helmets shooting at you.

It's all cute and stupid as it murders you.   That hasn't changed.   

The dated, lower quality 3D does kind of suck though since it actually looks like Dawn of Mana has better visuals than this will have. 

No, I tell you what the real problem is, it's that they're remaking a game that doesn't need to be remade...

You've not even played the game.  Just stop.

If any old Square IP is deserving of a remake, it's definitely SOM.   They've rehashed all the FF games out the ass and sort of dropped the ball with continuing the mana series.  Chrono Trigger got a PS1 release with anime cutscenes. 

Secret of Mana never got shit really. 

What it really deserves is a full-blown redo.   like FFXV caliber visuals with studio rock music to match the music that was in the original in terms of percussive presence.

This one is a budget remake, which is disappointing, but still piques my interest enough to give it a shot.   

[Johnpv]

IMHO this looks really low effort for the 40 bucks they're going to charge for it.  I would have been much happier if they just brought the SoM collection they just released on the Switch in Japan here. 

[Arkhan Asylum]

IMHO this looks really low effort for the 40 bucks they're going to charge for it.  I would have been much happier if they just brought the SoM collection they just released on the Switch in Japan here. 

you mean emulated versions of crap you can already emulate? lol ayyyyyyyyyyyy

macarena.

[SignOfZeta]

I know a guy who has purchased so many repacked SNK games that he could have had a real MVS and a half dozen carts by now. I guess it's fun to see what things a bleeding edge super computer like a PS4 or an XBone will fuck up this time when once again porting a 20 year old game that ran on a 68000.

[Arkhan Asylum]

I know a guy who has purchased so many repacked SNK games that he could have had a real MVS and a half dozen carts by now. I guess it's fun to see what things a bleeding edge super computer like a PS4 or an XBone will fuck up this time when once again porting a 20 year old game that ran on a 68000.

I loled.

I only bought a few SNK games for handhelds for the whole "playin while I poop" thing.

i rarely buy redos unless they severely fix things.   When it's a thing like this, I'll only do it if it's something I really like. 


maybe a 7th Saga redo is next.

that would kick a ton of ass.

[Michirin9801]

...

See, I tend to look at games for their entire package, as opposed to "oh it fulfills my need for top down hack and slash, fuck the story."     

Back then, we had to do this shitty thing where we had to pay for stuff, so we had to carefully evaluate which things we bought so we didn't fuck ourselves and ruin our month until we could save up for another game by not eating lunch and pocketing our lunch money.    You are basically emulating/freeloading most of this stuff now, so you're kind of lucky.

When you're standing there with like 50$ as a kid and you are like OK, I can get this SNES game, or these two gameboy games, you have to really make sure you're making the right decisions in life.   Otherwise you end up buying shit like Wizards and Warriors + Castlevania Adventure while passing on like Joe and Mac or something, and then you feel like a fucking moron after you realize what you've done.

And you really think I've never had an experience like that? Look, just because I'm young and I emulate a lot of stuff, doesn't mean I've never had to save money to buy the games that I wanted, nor does it mean that I could always emulate everything that I wanted (even to this day I can't)
I value my games just as much as you do (probably more actually) but I just so happen to have different priorities from yours, and that's what you seem to fail to understand...

Looking at the whole package, in one side I have a game which plays okay, but has an amazing story, and on this other side there's a game which plays AMAZING and has barely any story what-so-ever...
I'll gladly pick the latter! And you'll most likely pick the former from what I gather, and that's fine...
I'm not asking for you to agree with me, all I'm doing telling you what my position is and why it is that way...

No, I tell you what the real problem is, it's that they're remaking a game that doesn't need to be remade...

You've not even played the game.  Just stop.

If any old Square IP is deserving of a remake, it's definitely SOM.   They've rehashed all the FF games out the ass and sort of dropped the ball with continuing the mana series.  Chrono Trigger got a PS1 release with anime cutscenes. 

Secret of Mana never got shit really. 

What it really deserves is a full-blown redo.   like FFXV caliber visuals with studio rock music to match the music that was in the original in terms of percussive presence.

This one is a budget remake, which is disappointing, but still piques my interest enough to give it a shot.   

I can see we also have different opinions about remakes...
Here's how I think about it: If the game is already good, if it still looks sounds and plays well, why remake it? It doesn't NEED to be remade! Wonder Boy 3 didn't need to be remade, well, it kind of did, but we already had a perfect remake of Wonder Boy 3 called "Dragon's Curse"...
Rondo of Blood didn't need to be remade, it's pretty much still the best Castlevania in my mind, and it still looks, sounds and plays incredible! (Better than the remake I'd say)

But just because a game doesn't need to be remade doesn't mean that a remake isn't welcome!
I LOVED the Wonder Boy 3 remake, those hand-drawn graphics were gorgeous and the gameplay, although it was exactly the same, it felt better because the animations were so much better! (And the parallax scrolling is also a very welcome addition)
I'd still rather play Dragon's Curse because the soundtrack is still better on the TurboGrafx, but still...

Same goes with Secret of Mana, yes I haven't played it, but I've seen it, I've heard it, and it looks and sounds great! (why do you think I WANT to play it?)
As I thought I had left clear enough, the remake is welcome because it will present the game again in a new way to a new audience, and potentially raise awareness about the original, and that's a good thing in my book!

What NEEDS to be remade are games which haven't aged well (unlike Secret of Mana), like early 3D games for example which were fine back then, but nowadays they look like arse... (I wouldn't be surprised if someone said they think they looked bad even back then) Those would also benefit from a better frame-rate for the most part...
I'd love nothing more than a Zelda 2 remake so that they could fix the gameplay and the graphics (which I think look worse than Zelda 1) or a remake of the first Goemon game on the N64 so that they could fix the camera, stuff like that...
Heck, I'd say they need to remake more BAD games so that they can be made GOOD!
Anyone looking forward to the new Bubsy game? I'm not, but I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out good, I mean, It's apparently being made by the same people who made the new Giana Sisters game, and I hear that's a good game!

[ParanoiaDragon]

Man I could go for an HD version of Bubsy 3D, I'd KILL!  Don't fix the controls, just give me 1080 on that bad boy!  Actually yeah, Giana Sisters is cool, I have it.  Haven't beaten it yet.  I do wonder if the if the new Bubsy will turn out ok.  I recal the first game being alright.  I never played the 2nd one.  I have the Jag game.....uh huh.  And I got Bubsy 3D cuz it was cheaper than dirt on half.com...........it's pretty bad.  I would like to enjoy it, but I don't.

Which reminds me, I must be the only person who actually likes Sword of Mana! *runs for the hills*  I never really played Final Fantasy Adventure, so SoM came first for me, than I played Adventures of Mana recently.  It'd been eons, but the only thing I remember not liking about SoM was the glitchiness......which may have been a feature come to think of it!

[Arkhan Asylum]

And you really think I've never had an experience like that? Look, just because I'm young and I emulate a lot of stuff, doesn't mean I've never had to save money to buy the games that I wanted, nor does it mean that I could always emulate everything that I wanted (even to this day I can't)

sure, ...but you grew up in the era where emulating all of this 8/16 bit shit was a readily available option,

and in an era where finding out if a game blew a load of dicks was really easy to find out.   



The things you can't emulate are few and far between, and pointing something like that out to all of us is #firstworldproblems at this point.   What can't you emulate?   

Imagine having to trust magazines, commercials, or the back of the game box because you can't just bop onto YouTube and watch some gameplay videos.   and then you rent something awful and your weekend is fucked.  Thank fuck for FuncoLand back then.   They'd let you try stuff. 

You are lucky.   Don't try to explain your way out of it.  It's just a fact.  I would've killed for the ability to emulate all of this easily, or to be able to watch an endless supply of videos to see what games are like.    Even once we could emulate, you're rocking dialup on shit-tier ROM sites on an expensive ass computer that that you have to share with everyone because its 1998 and you're 10.

and it still doesn't emulate stuff right.

Flashcarts would've blown our minds back in the early/mid 90s.

I value my games just as much as you do (probably more actually)

Fuckin'

Yeah, so, get back to me on that when you look at a large chunk of your gaming collection and realize it was given to you as a bday/xmas present by a relative that is no longer alive, games you went out to the store to get with a relative that is no longer alive, or are games you grew up playing with relatives who are again, no longer alive.

in addition to games you bought via not eating lunch for awhile, or from paper routes, or from weighing the pros and cons of selling action figures at garage sales to buy more games, or shit like that.   

Saying shit like that makes you sound like a total dumbass.

but I just so happen to have different priorities from yours, and that's what you seem to fail to understand...

there's no failure to understand something that you haven't really articulated clearly.  Your priorities seem to be iterating which things are your current most favorite thing ever of all time while arguing about shit you haven't played yet, while then pointing out that you have to do school or something so you play handhelds alot.   What the hell do you think any of us were doing during college?   I dunno about you.  Gaming is gaming.   You find ways to do it during college.   My priorities on gaming haven't really changed.   

I can see we also have different opinions about remakes...
Here's how I think about it: If the game is already good, if it still looks sounds and plays well, why remake it? It doesn't NEED to be remade! Wonder Boy 3 didn't need to be remade, well, it kind of did, but we already had a perfect remake of Wonder Boy 3 called "Dragon's Curse"...
Rondo of Blood didn't need to be remade, it's pretty much still the best Castlevania in my mind, and it still looks, sounds and plays incredible! (Better than the remake I'd say)

But just because a game doesn't need to be remade doesn't mean that a remake isn't welcome!
I LOVED the Wonder Boy 3 remake, those hand-drawn graphics were gorgeous and the gameplay, although it was exactly the same, it felt better because the animations were so much better! (And the parallax scrolling is also a very welcome addition)
I'd still rather play Dragon's Curse because the soundtrack is still better on the TurboGrafx, but still...

Same goes with Secret of Mana, yes I haven't played it, but I've seen it, I've heard it, and it looks and sounds great! (why do you think I WANT to play it?)
As I thought I had left clear enough, the remake is welcome because it will present the game again in a new way to a new audience, and potentially raise awareness about the original, and that's a good thing in my book!

What NEEDS to be remade are games which haven't aged well (unlike Secret of Mana), like early 3D games for example which were fine back then, but nowadays they look like arse... (I wouldn't be surprised if someone said they think they looked bad even back then) Those would also benefit from a better frame-rate for the most part...
I'd love nothing more than a Zelda 2 remake so that they could fix the gameplay and the graphics (which I think look worse than Zelda 1) or a remake of the first Goemon game on the N64 so that they could fix the camera, stuff like that...
Heck, I'd say they need to remake more BAD games so that they can be made GOOD!
Anyone looking forward to the new Bubsy game? I'm not, but I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out good, I mean, It's apparently being made by the same people who made the new Giana Sisters game, and I hear that's a good game!

First: explain how Zelda 2 looks worse than 1.   Zelda 1 looks like shit.

You're running around a vanilla icecream sundae, beating up pieces of cereal basically. 

It's ugly.   

At least Zelda 2 has better proportions, and better looking terrain + sprites.    The gameplay is generally fine too outside of being a bit difficult.  What's wrong with it?   Before the internet told everyone so, Zelda II was regarded as a pretty fantastic game.    I have literally never heard someone say Zelda II looks worse than Zelda I.  Ever. 


Anyway, A lot of things need remade for different reasons.

Sometimes, it's to give it better visuals or use better technology to make the game not goony. 
Other times, it's just to revisit a game because it's been awhile. 

The concept of not aging well graphically never really clicks for me, anyways.   Shit looks and plays the same as it did.   I can play a doofy looking CRPG from 1984 and be A-OK even though I am aware that we've moved past 16 colors and stick-figures.

The jarring framerate difference between PS1 and PS4 goes away after maybe an hour of playing PS1 again.    I don't deny that it's there, but it's not like it's a horrible disaster.   Tenchu is still some 10/10 excitement.

Some of that PS1 stuff looks awful at times, but it's never been so awful that you can't play it, unless it was awful in the first place.   I can't think of a PS1 game that was fucking amazing and now it sucks because bad-3D.

In some cases, like FF7, the visuals give the game character.   I am expecting that remake to not have the same atmosphere because those pre-rendered backgrounds will be gone.

and, yes, it'd be nice to see stuff that has moving mouths instead of parkinsons movement to simulate talking, but that doesn't really make me not play MGS1 anymore.   

... but in the case of 2D games, sometimes its just neat to see a 3D retelling of an old game.

Ys 3 vs Oath in Felghana for example. 



Remaking bad games is generally how you end up with shit like Night Trap.   

Remaking notoriously shit games only does well because of the cult fad mentality of buying a piece of shit to parade around and show everyone so you can all laugh and high five each other like idiots.

There are some less than good games that deserve a redo though, like Ultima II or Fade 2 Black.



The best example of a remake done right thus far is probably Shadow of the Beast.     You should probably play that.


EDIT: 

also, when your games were traded or bought from people here who are now dead.

[Michirin9801]

Which reminds me, I must be the only person who actually likes Sword of Mana! *runs for the hills*

I can appreciate what it was trying to be, and it sure looks great! But damn was it boring...

[Arkhan Asylum]

Which reminds me, I must be the only person who actually likes Sword of Mana! *runs for the hills*

I can appreciate what it was trying to be, and it sure looks great! But damn was it boring...

no you cant.  you never played the original game very far, by your own admission.

So, you really can't properly appreciate what it was attempting...

[Michirin9801]

And you really think I've never had an experience like that? Look, just because I'm young and I emulate a lot of stuff, doesn't mean I've never had to save money to buy the games that I wanted, nor does it mean that I could always emulate everything that I wanted (even to this day I can't)

sure, ...but you grew up in the era where emulating all of this 8/16 bit shit was a readily available option,

and in an era where finding out if a game blew a load of dicks was really easy to find out.   




The things you can't emulate are few and far between, and pointing something like that out to all of us is #firstworldproblems at this point.   What can't you emulate?   

Imagine having to trust magazines, commercials, or the back of the game box because you can't just bop onto YouTube and watch some gameplay videos.   and then you rent something awful and your weekend is fucked.  Thank fuck for FuncoLand back then.   They'd let you try stuff. 

You are lucky.   Don't try to explain your way out of it.  It's just a fact.  I would've killed for the ability to emulate all of this easily, or to be able to watch an endless supply of videos to see what games are like.    Even once we could emulate, you're rocking dialup on shit-tier ROM sites on an expensive ass computer that that you have to share with everyone because its 1998 and you're 10.

and it still doesn't emulate stuff right.

Flashcarts would've blown our minds back in the early/mid 90s.

Let me tell you something about me which you probably haven't noticed:

I AM POOR

I've used my trusty old Windows 98 until 2009 because I couldn't afford anything better, and that PC was built with Donated Parts, I was still using Dial-Up all the way up to 2007 because we just couldn't afford broadband before then, I had a PS1 in the early 2000s because that's what was cheap, and I still couldn't have even half of the games that I wanted to play (not even pirated), and then it stopped working, and we couldn't replace it... I got a GBA later, when the DS was already out, and I had EVEN LESS GAMES for the GBA, but I'm at least grateful to have played Super Mario World during school recess, that was like, the best thing ever... I could only much later experience the rest of the GBA's library because my new PC at the time could run GBA well...

I DIDN'T HAVE CABLE! All I could watch was either s***-tier TV or whatever my parents would let me rent on VHS or DVD (the latter of which we only got MUCH later)

As for emulation, do you think my Windows 98 could run anything better than ZSNES? Even THAT wouldn't run everything properly... At most I could get Pokemon on the GBA to run, but I've never been too big into Pokemon anyway, and the plethora of better GBA games just wouldn't run at a playable speed...

My current PC is still not very good, the most powerful thing I can emulate is PSP, anything better is a no-go... I can at least say I finally have decent PS1 emulation thanks to RetroArch and the Mednafen core, so I can't emulate PS2, PS3 or PS4, I can't emulate any Xbox system (as if I'd want to), I can emulate Saturn on SSF but that's not ideal so I mostly don't bother...

And I can only afford ONE game system and its games per generation, and not even all of the games that I want! The ONLY thing I have working at the moment are my Wii and my 3DS, that's ALL I HAVE! And I don't have even half of the 3DS games I want!

And you think I don't want to play Wii U, Switch, Vita, PS3 or PS4 games? I do, BUT I CAN'T!
I'm not NEARLY as lucky as you think I am, you just like to assume things about other people without knowing them...

but I just so happen to have different priorities from yours, and that's what you seem to fail to understand...

there's no failure to understand something that you haven't really articulated clearly.  Your priorities seem to be iterating which things are your current most favorite thing ever of all time while arguing about shit you haven't played yet, while then pointing out that you have to do school or something so you play handhelds alot.   What the hell do you think any of us were doing during college?   I dunno about you.  Gaming is gaming.   You find ways to do it during college.   My priorities on gaming haven't really changed.   

I think I articulate my thoughts clearly enough, you're just too lazy to pay attention to what you're reading...
I was referring priorities when it comes to gaming, and mine is "Having fun is the most important thing in any game" and I think reading dialogue is rarely fun...
Stories are a bottom-tier priority to me, it's not like I don't like story, but it's the last thing that is gonna make any impact on me in a game...
The presentation is also very important to me (I'm an artist after all) and I'll always notice the little details in the art, in the animation and in the music, but the top-priority is ALWAYS the gameplay, whether or not the game is fun to play, if it feels good to play, and I'll always take a game with good gameplay and bad story over a game with a good story and bad gameplay!

Also, I have less time now than ever not only because of college but because I'm working part-time as an animator, being paid close to jacks*** so that I can at least help pay for college, and MAYBE eat something on the way from work to college (which is 6 bus stops away but I go on foot so that I don't have to pay for an extra bus ride)
The only times I really have to play anything, are on the weekends when I'm not doing college work, on the bus rides or in college while I wait for the teachers to arrive, and in those situations I don't wanna play an RPG, or any big game, I wanna play something that I can pick up and play RIGHT NOW, and then put down at a moment's notice, (which is why I've been mostly playing Super Street Fighter IV and Hatsune Miku Project Mirai DX)

First: explain how Zelda 2 looks worse than 1.   Zelda 1 looks like shit.

You're running around a vanilla icecream sundae, beating up pieces of cereal basically. 

It's ugly.   

At least Zelda 2 has better proportions, and better looking terrain + sprites.    The gameplay is generally fine too outside of being a bit difficult.  What's wrong with it?   Before the internet told everyone so, Zelda II was regarded as a pretty fantastic game.    I have literally never heard someone say Zelda II looks worse than Zelda I.  Ever. 

I tell you what's the problem with Zelda 2's visuals: EVERYTHING IS A SQUARE!
At least Zelda 1 attempted to give its background objects rounded edges, unlike Zelda 2, the Overworld in Zelda 2 is particularly ugly, the side-scrolling sections are less bad, but repeating the same 4 x 8 pixels tile throughout an entire dungeon is just unforgivable...

The sprites in Zelda 2 are better than the BGs, but they're not great either, they're probably better than the ones in Zelda 1, I'll give you that, but 'proportions' aside, they're about on the same level...

And Zelda 2 isn't bad because it's hard, it's hard because it's bad! The main problem is the reach of Link's butter-knife, why couldn't they make it 16 pixels wide? (Because Flickering! Nintendo can't have any of that...) I mean, Ninja Gaiden gave you a 16 pixels wide sword slash, and that game feels fine to play! Heck, you probably have more reach with your bare fists in Batman and Shatterhand! I haven't counted the pixels, but those games sure FEEL better to play than Zelda 2, it feels like it's your fault when you get hit in those games, unlike in Zelda 2...

To be fair, Zelda 2 isn't "Bad" per se, but no game in the series needs a remake more badly than it does (the other two which needed to be remade have already been remade on the 3DS, and other than those, the first game also needs one, and no, BS Zelda doesn't count...)

Anyway, A lot of things need remade for different reasons.

Sometimes, it's to give it better visuals or use better technology to make the game not goony. 
Other times, it's just to revisit a game because it's been awhile. 

The concept of not aging well graphically never really clicks for me, anyways.   Shit looks and plays the same as it did.   I can play a doofy looking CRPG from 1984 and be A-OK even though I am aware that we've moved past 16 colors and stick-figures.

The jarring framerate difference between PS1 and PS4 goes away after maybe an hour of playing PS1 again.    I don't deny that it's there, but it's not like it's a horrible disaster.   Tenchu is still some 10/10 excitement.

Some of that PS1 stuff looks awful at times, but it's never been so awful that you can't play it, unless it was awful in the first place.   I can't think of a PS1 game that was fucking amazing and now it sucks because bad-3D.

In some cases, like FF7, the visuals give the game character.   I am expecting that remake to not have the same atmosphere because those pre-rendered backgrounds will be gone.

and, yes, it'd be nice to see stuff that has moving mouths instead of parkinsons movement to simulate talking, but that doesn't really make me not play MGS1 anymore.   

... but in the case of 2D games, sometimes its just neat to see a 3D retelling of an old game.

Ys 3 vs Oath in Felghana for example. 



Remaking bad games is generally how you end up with shit like Night Trap.   

Remaking notoriously shit games only does well because of the cult fad mentality of buying a piece of shit to parade around and show everyone so you can all laugh and high five each other like idiots.

There are some less than good games that deserve a redo though, like Ultima II or Fade 2 Black.

There you go, you've successfully pointed out a reason why they should remake Secret of Mana! Making it 3D... Personally I think 2D will always look best, but I like 3D stuff too, although I can better appreciate it when they have enough polygons to make stuff look nice (Read: 6th gen level graphics or above)
Also "Should" and "Need" are two very different words... Should they remake it? Yes. Does the game NEED to be remade? No...

As for the rest of your point, it's not very different from mine! I never said a game gets worse over time, they really don't, but sometimes better things come out and make you wish that these older things were more like this newer better thing, and THAT's when a game "doesn't age well"
Take the camera and frame-rate in SO MANY early 3D games, just fixing those would already make them exponentially better! Give'em better character and background models and voila! You've got a better version of something! (If only it was that easy)

Also, I said "Remake Bad Games so that you can make them good", can you really not pay attention to what you're reading? It doesn't even have to be a straight-up remake, you can take for example, a bad game which had a good idea, and focus on that idea while doing something new but with the same name and IP...

Which reminds me, I must be the only person who actually likes Sword of Mana! *runs for the hills*

I can appreciate what it was trying to be, and it sure looks great! But damn was it boring...

no you cant.  you never played the original game very far, by your own admission.

So, you really can't properly appreciate what it was attempting...

Yes I can... I've played it far enough to not want to keep on playing, and it was trying to be a better version of a game which I thought could have been better... It was not better...

[Arkhan Asylum]

Let me tell you something about me which you probably haven't noticed:

I AM POOR

We know.  You say it and point it out often.  Yet you're also often rambling about how you emulate all kinds of shit, and how the Wii is an awesome emulation machine and whatever, so, ....

As for emulation, do you think my Windows 98 could run anything better than ZSNES? Even THAT wouldn't run everything properly... At most I could get Pokemon on the GBA to run, but I've never been too big into Pokemon anyway, and the plethora of better GBA games just wouldn't run at a playable speed...

When we're talking 8/16 bit stuff, this is fine.  I was emulating on a PII 233mhz Windows 98 machine from 1997 and had to tweak for days to get SNES games to not chug out when audio was playing.  I was also doing it on a 90mhz Pentium 1.   and then that computer died in the middle of playing Pool of Radiance and I was basically computerless until I too frankensteined something together. 

And you think I don't want to play Wii U, Switch, Vita, PS3 or PS4 games? I do, BUT I CAN'T!
I'm not NEARLY as lucky as you think I am, you just like to assume things about other people without knowing them...

So, we're here talking about vintage games, and the point was how you don't really know what it was like during this time's hayday since you're emulating and getting it all after it's sloppy seconds/thirds.   

I'm not assuming anything in that regard.  You made it abundantly clear here and elsewhere that you have plenty of ways to emulate the relevant platforms for said discussion.  Your frame of reference for this era is skewed.  This is the era I am talking about.  I wasn't talking about current crap.  Sorry you thought I was.

as for assuming things...   try looking in the mirror.   I notice you predictably didn't address the "value of games" thing, because I hope you realize how fucking stupid you sounded.

I think I articulate my thoughts clearly enough, you're just too lazy to pay attention to what you're reading...

No, you really don't articulate them clearly sometimes.  It's not about being lazy.  Sometimes it's just simple misunderstanding of context that is filled in by whatever else you say on this forum.   Saying "priorties" could mean alot of things when it's vague as shit with no qualifying bits. 

I was referring priorities when it comes to gaming, and mine is "Having fun is the most important thing in any game" and I think reading dialogue is rarely fun...
Stories are a bottom-tier priority to me, it's not like I don't like story, but it's the last thing that is gonna make any impact on me in a game...

Well, you might wanna steer clear of RPG centric discussions then, lol.

Also, I have less time now than ever not only because of college but because I'm working part-time as an animator, being paid close to jacks*** so that I can at least help pay for college, and MAYBE eat something on the way from work to college (which is 6 bus stops away but I go on foot so that I don't have to pay for an extra bus ride)

And?  You're talking to someone that worked and went to college, rode the bus daily, and then worked *full time* while going back for a masters.  I get it.  It sucks.  I found time to make games while still playing them, while still doing the above.  YMMV. 

I tell you what's the problem with Zelda 2's visuals: EVERYTHING IS A SQUARE!

lol.  It's an NES game.  *high five*

At least Zelda 1 attempted to give its background objects rounded edges, unlike Zelda 2, the Overworld in Zelda 2 is particularly ugly, the side-scrolling sections are less bad, but repeating the same 4 x 8 pixels tile throughout an entire dungeon is just unforgivable...

The overworld is ugly, but not any worse than any other RPG on NES.   also, uh, Zelda 1 uses the same goony ass looking tile set for every dungeon, palette swapped.  It's not like Zelda 1 really blew it out of the water with that shit, lol.   Those rounded edges you're on about aren't that great either especially next to the square ass forests... with + sign intersections.

The sprites in Zelda 2 are better than the BGs, but they're not great either, they're probably better than the ones in Zelda 1, I'll give you that, but 'proportions' aside, they're about on the same level...

and yet for an NES game, they were big, detailed, and had a great variety going on.   What NES games really have astronomically better sprites going on?

And Zelda 2 isn't bad because it's hard, it's hard because it's bad! The main problem is the reach of Link's butter-knife, why couldn't they make it 16 pixels wide? (Because Flickering! Nintendo can't have any of that...) I mean, Ninja Gaiden gave you a 16 pixels wide sword slash, and that game feels fine to play! Heck, you probably have more reach with your bare fists in Batman and Shatterhand! I haven't counted the pixels, but those games sure FEEL better to play than Zelda 2, it feels like it's your fault when you get hit in those games, unlike in Zelda 2...

To be fair, Zelda 2 isn't "Bad" per se, but no game in the series needs a remake more badly than it does (the other two which needed to be remade have already been remade on the 3DS, and other than those, the first game also needs one, and no, BS Zelda doesn't count...)

I am pretty sure they did that to add challenge to the game, and nothing else.   Having a bigger weapon would mean redesigning all the other enemies where they have reach over you. 

Once you get leveled a bit, and get moves/magic, it doesn't really matter.   That game was great.  The dungeons seemed huge.  There was a lot of exploring.  You got to go into towns and talk to people.  They had actual houses.  Not caves.   The dungeons had elevators.  YOU COULD JUMP. 

and you probably didn't play the game until after LTTP, so you're all jacked up on how great it really was. 

The games that need remade the most would be the CDi ones.  Wand of Gamelon was almost sort of OK but still fucking sucked.

They should remake Zelda 1 way before bothering to remake Zelda 2. 

There you go, you've successfully pointed out a reason why they should remake Secret of Mana! Making it 3D...

I successfully pointed this out before this post.   Remember how you said *I* was too lazy to read things?    lol.

As for the rest of your point, it's not very different from mine! I never said a game gets worse over time, they really don't, but sometimes better things come out and make you wish that these older things were more like this newer better thing, and THAT's when a game "doesn't age well"
Take the camera and frame-rate in SO MANY early 3D games, just fixing those would already make them exponentially better! Give'em better character and background models and voila! You've got a better version of something! (If only it was that easy)

You didn't say it, but other people have and continue to.

Camera controls are the only thing from the PS1 era that really didn't age well, because you CANT CONTROL THEM AT ALL.    That shit sucked.   It sucked back at the time even, and you learned to live with it, and sometimes exploit it to see shit you shouldn't be able to see.   Granted, now you just... rotate it and do the same thing.

also, that's not when a game doesn't age well, really.  It doesn't age well when the new things come out and make it so you are basically unable to handle playing the old thing.

Like the Odyssey.   Putting plastic shit on your TV and playing pretend doesn't really work now that we have games that actually do stuff.

the old Ultima games look fuckin doofy, and while anyone might wish they had a graphical facelift, mouse support, or anything like that... it doesn't mean they have not aged well.  In fact, Ultima IV was deemed so good by the creator and fans, that's its been made eternally a free-to-pass-around game. 

Also, I said "Remake Bad Games so that you can make them good", can you really not pay attention to what you're reading? It doesn't even have to be a straight-up remake, you can take for example, a bad game which had a good idea, and focus on that idea while doing something new but with the same name and IP...

I can pay attention just fine.  I'm just not addressing only you and your points here.   Much like how you go off on tangents, so can others.

Can you really not understand something that simple ?     If you're going to be condescending, you might want to be sure of what you're doing before you double down.  or maybe you're triplin' down at this point.  I don't know.

Yes I can... I've played it far enough to not want to keep on playing, and it was trying to be a better version of a game which I thought could have been better... It was not better...

I don't buy it.  Especially since you didn't seem to get how the variety of weapons mattered.  If you didn't go through the whole game and experience the story and presentation of the OG, you can't properly appreciate, followed by despise what Sword of Mana tried to do.

You just didn't like it the first time because it wasn't like Links Awakening, and hoped a GBA version with newer visuals and shit would make it the bestest ever.

[Michirin9801]

So, we're here talking about vintage games, and the point was how you don't really know what it was like during this time's hayday since you're emulating and getting it all after it's sloppy seconds/thirds.   

I'm not assuming anything in that regard.  You made it abundantly clear here and elsewhere that you have plenty of ways to emulate the relevant platforms for said discussion.  Your frame of reference for this era is skewed.  This is the era I am talking about.  I wasn't talking about current crap.  Sorry you thought I was.

as for assuming things...   try looking in the mirror.   I notice you predictably didn't address the "value of games" thing, because I hope you realize how fucking stupid you sounded.

You're talking about the old games when they were new, back when they were expensive and 'unemulatable', if you only try and see from a different perspective you'd see why bringing up newer games is relevant to this conversation...
You couldn't emulate old games back when they were new, I can't emulate new games because they're new... It's not too far apart!
Yes, I can emulate the older games, but that doesn't mean I don't value them as much as you do...
The thing that you seem to fail to understand is that I value different games than you do, and for different reasons!

I think I articulate my thoughts clearly enough, you're just too lazy to pay attention to what you're reading...

No, you really don't articulate them clearly sometimes.  It's not about being lazy.  Sometimes it's just simple misunderstanding of context that is filled in by whatever else you say on this forum.   Saying "priorties" could mean alot of things when it's vague as shit with no qualifying bits. 

The problem is that you take just one sentence of what I said, and then quote it out of context questioning it for something for which the answer is elsewhere in the same post, even if it's not obvious... If you just read it taking in consideration what you were saying in the previous quote you'd know what I was referring to... Or do I REALLY need to spell out EVERYTHING that I mean?

I was referring priorities when it comes to gaming, and mine is "Having fun is the most important thing in any game" and I think reading dialogue is rarely fun...
Stories are a bottom-tier priority to me, it's not like I don't like story, but it's the last thing that is gonna make any impact on me in a game...

Well, you might wanna steer clear of RPG centric discussions then, lol.

Why would I? I also enjoy RPGs, and I've played plenty when I had the time...
And even though "Story" and "Dialogue" isn't my thing, that's FAR from the only thing an RPG has to offer... I love the heck out of the Dragon Quest series, those games aren't about the story! Their stories are pretty basic... No, the DQ games are about having an adventure with a fun party of characters and getting to explore a world that's filled with towns, dungeons, treasure, monsters and what not! They have a really good presentation with great graphics and music!
I also enjoy the Mario RPGs because they've got a more interesting battle system than most other RPGs with button commands which help you increase your damage output and decrease the damage taken...
I also like games like Summon Night Swordcraft Story 1 and 2, Etrian Odyssey series, the Ys series, the Mother series and so on, and even some games which are story-focused like Chrono Trigger and Mother 3, in games like those the story is just SO good that it actually DOES make an impact on me!
But what helps those games is that they've also got something interesting going on with the gameplay...

I tell you what's the problem with Zelda 2's visuals: EVERYTHING IS A SQUARE!

lol.  It's an NES game.  *high five*

At least Zelda 1 attempted to give its background objects rounded edges, unlike Zelda 2, the Overworld in Zelda 2 is particularly ugly, the side-scrolling sections are less bad, but repeating the same 4 x 8 pixels tile throughout an entire dungeon is just unforgivable...

The overworld is ugly, but not any worse than any other RPG on NES.   also, uh, Zelda 1 uses the same goony ass looking tile set for every dungeon, palette swapped.  It's not like Zelda 1 really blew it out of the water with that shit, lol.   Those rounded edges you're on about aren't that great either especially next to the square ass forests... with + sign intersections.

Personally, I think Zelda 2 has the ugliest-looking overworld in ANY NES game which I've played, it looks worse than the Japanese version of Dragon Quest 1...
It's better to have one fine tileset for all dungeons than plenty of crap tilesets, and at least the rounded mountain edges and round-looking bushes prevent every tile from looking like a square... It's not great, but Zelda 2 is much worse in my opinion...

The sprites in Zelda 2 are better than the BGs, but they're not great either, they're probably better than the ones in Zelda 1, I'll give you that, but 'proportions' aside, they're about on the same level...

and yet for an NES game, they were big, detailed, and had a great variety going on.   What NES games really have astronomically better sprites going on?

Pretty much everything by Hudson, Sunsoft, Natsume, Konami and Capcom...
Also, many of Nintendo's own other games, particularly the Mario games...

And Zelda 2 isn't bad because it's hard, it's hard because it's bad! The main problem is the reach of Link's butter-knife, why couldn't they make it 16 pixels wide? (Because Flickering! Nintendo can't have any of that...) I mean, Ninja Gaiden gave you a 16 pixels wide sword slash, and that game feels fine to play! Heck, you probably have more reach with your bare fists in Batman and Shatterhand! I haven't counted the pixels, but those games sure FEEL better to play than Zelda 2, it feels like it's your fault when you get hit in those games, unlike in Zelda 2...

To be fair, Zelda 2 isn't "Bad" per se, but no game in the series needs a remake more badly than it does (the other two which needed to be remade have already been remade on the 3DS, and other than those, the first game also needs one, and no, BS Zelda doesn't count...)

I am pretty sure they did that to add challenge to the game, and nothing else.   Having a bigger weapon would mean redesigning all the other enemies where they have reach over you. 

With how the game ended up, it pretty much NEEDED a redesign... It's got a backwards difficulty curve for f***'s sake!
No, they just did it because they didn't want their game to flicker, Nintendo was quite anal about their NES games flickering as little as possible, I mean, why else do you think you couldn't crouch and shoot in Metroid? How about starting you up with a weapon with 0 reach? And whenever you DO get more reach, you can't shoot as much... And how do they manage to give you a bigger shot? By making the one bullet sprite wave up and down, because making a bigger shot sprite would have made the sprites flicker...

Once you get leveled a bit, and get moves/magic, it doesn't really matter.

See what I meant with "Backwards difficulty curve"?

As for the rest of your point, it's not very different from mine! I never said a game gets worse over time, they really don't, but sometimes better things come out and make you wish that these older things were more like this newer better thing, and THAT's when a game "doesn't age well"
Take the camera and frame-rate in SO MANY early 3D games, just fixing those would already make them exponentially better! Give'em better character and background models and voila! You've got a better version of something! (If only it was that easy)

You didn't say it, but other people have and continue to.

Camera controls are the only thing from the PS1 era that really didn't age well, because you CANT CONTROL THEM AT ALL.    That shit sucked.   It sucked back at the time even, and you learned to live with it, and sometimes exploit it to see shit you shouldn't be able to see.   Granted, now you just... rotate it and do the same thing.

also, that's not when a game doesn't age well, really.  It doesn't age well when the new things come out and make it so you are basically unable to handle playing the old thing.

Like the Odyssey.   Putting plastic shit on your TV and playing pretend doesn't really work now that we have games that actually do stuff.

the old Ultima games look fuckin doofy, and while anyone might wish they had a graphical facelift, mouse support, or anything like that... it doesn't mean they have not aged well.  In fact, Ultima IV was deemed so good by the creator and fans, that's its been made eternally a free-to-pass-around game. 

"Not aging well" isn't black and white, there's a gradient of things that have aged pretty well (16 bit stuff) somewhat well (8 bit stuff and 6th gen 3D) and not very well (pre-NES stuff and Early 3D games)
And what does and doesn't age well goes from person to person, the aforementioned examples are just what I think have in general aged well or not well...

Yes I can... I've played it far enough to not want to keep on playing, and it was trying to be a better version of a game which I thought could have been better... It was not better...

I don't buy it.  Especially since you didn't seem to get how the variety of weapons mattered.  If you didn't go through the whole game and experience the story and presentation of the OG, you can't properly appreciate, followed by despise what Sword of Mana tried to do.

You just didn't like it the first time because it wasn't like Links Awakening, and hoped a GBA version with newer visuals and shit would make it the bestest ever.

I've explained well enough with my Castlevania comparison... "More Weapons" doesn't automatically make the combat "Better", it's how the game uses said weapons which do!
Link's Awakening doesn't need more weapons because the way it uses its items already gives the game more variety, not only in its combat, but also in its exploration and puzzle-solving elements...

And I don't need to continue to play a game which I'm not enjoying to know that I'm not enjoying what I'm playing...

[Arkhan Asylum]

You're talking about the old games when they were new, back when they were expensive and 'unemulatable', if you only try and see from a different perspective you'd see why bringing up newer games is relevant to this conversation...
You couldn't emulate old games back when they were new, I can't emulate new games because they're new... It's not too far apart!
Yes, I can emulate the older games, but that doesn't mean I don't value them as much as you do...

It's actually kinda far apart.  You just don't get it.

We are all living in an era where we can find out about games extremely easily before wasting money on them.   You aren't really forced to make judgement calls anymore, hoping you make the right choice.   All of that stuff we had to cross our fingers on fits on a USB stick now, for you to just sit and fiddle around with at your leisure.  Free.   

For new stuff, theres free demos, trailers, online reviews for days full of screenshots, youtube live plays out the ass. 

It's a different world.  That's why bringing up the new stuff isn't as relevant as you wish it was.  especially since we're all here.  You literally weren't there/coherent during the era being talked about.  By the time you were coherent, that world was fading away and turning into this.

We will never be in the dark ages again unless the internet suddenly blows up.   That might be a good thing, so all those dumbassed youtube unboxing and reaction videos can stop being a thing.

The fact that you can't get freebies of current games isn't relevant to the point I was making.   None of us can get freebies of current games, but we can basically watch youtubes to see if we even care to spend the money.  This is different.   I was talking about having to weigh pros and cons and making sure you didn't blow your money on garbage.  If you blow your money on garbage now, you must be fucking blind/without internet/really impatient.

Which again, is why I am talking about the 8/16 bit era basically.     Also, you could emulate that stuff just a few years after it was made.  Chrono Trigger was emulatable in like 1999.

It's a whole different ball-game now.  It's not like it was at all.  You don't ride your bike to the store to find that the game is sold out anymore.   You can just Amazon that shit and it shows up. 

The thing that you seem to fail to understand is that I value different games than you do, and for different reasons!

First it was "more".  Now it's "different".  Just stop.   It's not me failing to understand anything.  It's you talking out of your ass and changing your words when you realize you sound like a dipshit.

Just admit that you're lucky you didn't have to experience trusting the peckerwoods in Gamefan on their game commentary when you go to buy something, and that you got to experience all of that shit without having to go buy/rent to play stuff, sometimes not even being able to find the game you want nearby.

The problem is that you take just one sentence of what I said, and then quote it out of context questioning it for something for which the answer is elsewhere in the same post, even if it's not obvious... If you just read it taking in consideration what you were saying in the previous quote you'd know what I was referring to... Or do I REALLY need to spell out EVERYTHING that I mean?

Yes, you should probably spell out what you mean instead of vague shit while also going off on tangents.  You go off on tangents.  You adverb the shit out of your sentences.   You clearly have the time to spell out what you mean so there's no guess work.  It's your own fault if you expect people to go piece your fever dream post together the way you specifically want it "even if it's not obvious.".  If it's not obvious, you can expect varied results.

Vague shit is vague shit.  Even if you try connecting it to other posts.  It's still vague.  It's up for debate and can be filled in however people want based off of their own perception of the author. 

Why would I?

Mainly because you're contributing to wall-o-text in a thread centered around games you've basically got no goddamn clue about because you didn't play the one, and barely played the other, while admitting you give fuckall shits about story/dialogue in a game?

I mean, spend less time arguing goony points and use it playing Secret of Mana.

Personally, I think Zelda 2 has the ugliest-looking overworld in ANY NES game which I've played, it looks worse than the Japanese version of Dragon Quest 1...
It's better to have one fine tileset for all dungeons than plenty of crap tilesets, and at least the rounded mountain edges and round-looking bushes prevent every tile from looking like a square... It's not great, but Zelda 2 is much worse in my opinion...

Play Sted, lol.  It looks like if DQ1 forgot to get finished. The overworld in Zelda II isn't great by any means, but it's also not awful.  It's just middle of the road.  I wonder if there was a reason for it other than the art guy being lazy.  Maybe the blew their wad on the sidescrolling and sprites.  The overworld barely even matters in the game outside of the random encounters with puddingmen.

Pretty much everything by Hudson, Sunsoft, Natsume, Konami and Capcom...
Also, many of Nintendo's own other games, particularly the Mario games...

Can we get some side by sides?  Honestly curious, since no NES sprites have ever really blown my mind.   Contra's sprites are stupid looking.   MegaMans aren't exactly detailed.  .. Zelda IIs fit the cartoon/comicbook like manual art and shit for the game.

I think Samurai Pizza Cats is the best looking NES game, personally.

With how the game ended up, it pretty much NEEDED a redesign... It's got a backwards difficulty curve for f***'s sake!
No, they just did it because they didn't want their game to flicker, Nintendo was quite anal about their NES games flickering as little as possible, I mean, why else do you think you couldn't crouch and shoot in Metroid? How about starting you up with a weapon with 0 reach? And whenever you DO get more reach, you can't shoot as much... And how do they manage to give you a bigger shot? By making the one bullet sprite wave up and down, because making a bigger shot sprite would have made the sprites flicker...

Do you have actual citations on this?   You could in theory, crouch and shoot in Metroid, if they added it in.  When you fall, you are in a crouching position and can still shoot, IIRC.   Plus, the game flickers in Tourian regardless.  I am pretty sure you can crouch and shoot in Metroid 2, also.   On a gameboy. 

Some of that may be for flicker purposes along with careful enemy placement, but it's also because it was the first metroid and they were probably trying ideas out for challenge and difficulty?   The shot work in Super Metroid isn't exactly rapid fire either like something from Contra 3..

Making a bigger shot sprite would have also looked stupid.  Some of these things can really probably be chalked up to game/difficulty design.  The wavebeam is all jiggly, and passes through walls.  Fringe benefits to the thing right there.

See what I meant with "Backwards difficulty curve"?

No, because it progresses like an RPG.   Once you're grinded and armed to the teeth, you fuck everything up because you aren't a walking pudding container.   Pretty normal.

I've explained well enough with my Castlevania comparison... "More Weapons" doesn't automatically make the combat "Better", it's how the game uses said weapons which do!
Link's Awakening doesn't need more weapons because the way it uses its items already gives the game more variety, not only in its combat, but also in its exploration and puzzle-solving elements...

And I don't need to continue to play a game which I'm not enjoying to know that I'm not enjoying what I'm playing...

I said it makes it more interesting.  Remember how you said that thing about "not paying attention to what you read"?

I think you need to play through FFA and experience all of the weaponry, followed by Secret of Mana, the next progression in the matter, variety before commenting further.   How far did you actually get in the game before the lack of it being Links Awakening made you run away screaming?

[Michirin9801]

You're talking about the old games when they were new, back when they were expensive and 'unemulatable', if you only try and see from a different perspective you'd see why bringing up newer games is relevant to this conversation...
You couldn't emulate old games back when they were new, I can't emulate new games because they're new... It's not too far apart!
Yes, I can emulate the older games, but that doesn't mean I don't value them as much as you do...

It's actually kinda far apart.  You just don't get it.

We are all living in an era where we can find out about games extremely easily before wasting money on them.   You aren't really forced to make judgement calls anymore, hoping you make the right choice.   All of that stuff we had to cross our fingers on fits on a USB stick now, for you to just sit and fiddle around with at your leisure.  Free.   

For new stuff, theres free demos, trailers, online reviews for days full of screenshots, youtube live plays out the ass. 

It's a different world.  That's why bringing up the new stuff isn't as relevant as you wish it was.  especially since we're all here.  You literally weren't there/coherent during the era being talked about.  By the time you were coherent, that world was fading away and turning into this.

We will never be in the dark ages again unless the internet suddenly blows up.   That might be a good thing, so all those dumbassed youtube unboxing and reaction videos can stop being a thing.

The fact that you can't get freebies of current games isn't relevant to the point I was making.   None of us can get freebies of current games, but we can basically watch youtubes to see if we even care to spend the money.  This is different.   I was talking about having to weigh pros and cons and making sure you didn't blow your money on garbage.  If you blow your money on garbage now, you must be fucking blind/without internet/really impatient.

Which again, is why I am talking about the 8/16 bit era basically.     Also, you could emulate that stuff just a few years after it was made.  Chrono Trigger was emulatable in like 1999.

It's a whole different ball-game now.  It's not like it was at all.  You don't ride your bike to the store to find that the game is sold out anymore.   You can just Amazon that shit and it shows up. 

The thing is that you're talking as if I had access to this stuff while growing up... I have today, I've had for quite a while, but not when I was growing up, Internet to me back then was a luxury, for the most part I couldn't see what games were like before I got them unless I had already played them elsewhere, even though these things you mention already existed, so yes, I DO know what it's like to take a chance on a game...

Also, just because my perspective of the 8 and 16 bit games is different from yours, doesn't mean it's any less valid, just like my feelings towards whatever games we're talking about... You bashing the games that I like and saying that the games that you like are better isn't gonna convince me that they're better...

The thing that you seem to fail to understand is that I value different games than you do, and for different reasons!

First it was "more".  Now it's "different".  Just stop.   It's not me failing to understand anything.  It's you talking out of your ass and changing your words when you realize you sound like a dipshit.

No, I said "Probably More", and that's not a definitive thing, because I didn't know how much you value your games, the same way you don't know how much I value mine...
I'm not changing what I said, I'm adding to what I said...
And I don't need to have a 'tragic backstory' with each of my games to have an attachment to them, whether I own them physically or not...

Why would I?

Mainly because you're contributing to wall-o-text in a thread centered around games you've basically got no goddamn clue about because you didn't play the one, and barely played the other, while admitting you give fuckall shits about story/dialogue in a game?

I mean, spend less time arguing goony points and use it playing Secret of Mana.

As I said before, there's WAY more to RPGs than story/dialogue, and I enjoy playing them when I can, and I don't need to have played a game to know things about it, like for example, what it looks and sounds like, that it's a well-liked classic, and to be interested in playing it...
And you said "RPG-centric threads" which imply that I shouldn't talk about ANY RPGs because I don't care about stories as much...
You're the one who basically forces me to type out walls of text so that I can defend my points...

Also, I will when Nintendo stops updating the 3DS so that I can install a SNES emulator on it and play it in bed, on the bus and in college...

The problem is that you take just one sentence of what I said, and then quote it out of context questioning it for something for which the answer is elsewhere in the same post, even if it's not obvious... If you just read it taking in consideration what you were saying in the previous quote you'd know what I was referring to... Or do I REALLY need to spell out EVERYTHING that I mean?

Yes, you should probably spell out what you mean instead of vague shit while also going off on tangents.  You go off on tangents.  You adverb the shit out of your sentences.   You clearly have the time to spell out what you mean so there's no guess work.  It's your own fault if you expect people to go piece your fever dream post together the way you specifically want it "even if it's not obvious.".  If it's not obvious, you can expect varied results.

Vague shit is vague shit.  Even if you try connecting it to other posts.  It's still vague.  It's up for debate and can be filled in however people want based off of their own perception of the author. 

The "Tangents" I go in are in order to make comparisons which better illustrate the points that I'm trying to make... Connect the dots and "vague s***" is no longer gonna be vague...

Pretty much everything by Hudson, Sunsoft, Natsume, Konami and Capcom...
Also, many of Nintendo's own other games, particularly the Mario games...

Can we get some side by sides?  Honestly curious, since no NES sprites have ever really blown my mind.   Contra's sprites are stupid looking.   MegaMans aren't exactly detailed.  .. Zelda IIs fit the cartoon/comicbook like manual art and shit for the game.

I think Samurai Pizza Cats is the best looking NES game, personally.

I can't "show you" right now, but I can tell you some of the games which I think look quite a bit better than Zelda 2:
From Nintendo: Super Mario Bros. 2, Kirby's Adventure, Duck Hunt (yes) and... I don't really think there's much else from them on the NES which looks THAT much better than Zelda 2... And yes, that means I think Super Mario Bros. 2 looks better than Super Mario Bros. 3...

From Hudson: Jackie Chan's Action Kung Fu (some of the biggest and best-animated sprites on the NES) Bonk's Adventure (Looks almost as good as the TG-16 game sometimes), Xexyz...

From Natsume: Shadow of the Ninja and Shatterhand

From Konami: The Castlevania and Contra games of course

From Capcom: The Megaman games and the Disney games, although to be honest, I'm not too fond of Capcom's graphics and music on the NES like everyone else seems to be, but I definitely think that they have better graphics than Zelda 2, and the

From Sunsoft: Batman, Batman Return of the Joker (If any NES game is going to impress you with its graphics, this is the one, the music rules too! But it's Sunsoft, their music ALWAYS rules on the NES)
Journey to Silius and Gremlins 2

From Tecmo: The Ninja Gaiden games and Tecmo Bowl (haven't played this last one, but I've seen it, and yeah, the graphics are better than Zelda 2)

From Irem: Metal Storm, Spartan X2, Hammerin' Harry...

Again, these are NES games which I think look better than Zelda 2, not only in the backgrounds but also in the sprites, if you don't agree there's nothing I can do about it other than say "That's fine"
Also, I don't really expect any of these games to blow your mind with their graphics (Batman Return of the Joker is just the one I think is the most likely one, but it's probably not gonna) But they sure do impress me...

With how the game ended up, it pretty much NEEDED a redesign... It's got a backwards difficulty curve for f***'s sake!
No, they just did it because they didn't want their game to flicker, Nintendo was quite anal about their NES games flickering as little as possible, I mean, why else do you think you couldn't crouch and shoot in Metroid? How about starting you up with a weapon with 0 reach? And whenever you DO get more reach, you can't shoot as much... And how do they manage to give you a bigger shot? By making the one bullet sprite wave up and down, because making a bigger shot sprite would have made the sprites flicker...

Do you have actual citations on this?   You could in theory, crouch and shoot in Metroid, if they added it in.  When you fall, you are in a crouching position and can still shoot, IIRC.   Plus, the game flickers in Tourian regardless.  I am pretty sure you can crouch and shoot in Metroid 2, also.   On a gameboy. 

Some of that may be for flicker purposes along with careful enemy placement, but it's also because it was the first metroid and they were probably trying ideas out for challenge and difficulty?   The shot work in Super Metroid isn't exactly rapid fire either like something from Contra 3..

Making a bigger shot sprite would have also looked stupid.  Some of these things can really probably be chalked up to game/difficulty design.  The wavebeam is all jiggly, and passes through walls.  Fringe benefits to the thing right there.

Yes, you could crouch and shoot in Metroid 2, which is a different, MUCH better game than Metroid 1 in my opinion... Also, the Game Boy could display 160 pixels worth of sprites in a horizontal line without flickering (10 sprites which can be as wide as 16 pixels each) which btw, is the whole horizontal resolution of the Game Boy, whereas the NES could only display 64 pixels worth of sprites in a horizontal line without flickering (8 sprites which can be as wide as 8 pixels only) so basically you can only have a 16 pixel wide character and 3 16 pixel wide enemies on the same horizontal line at a time...
Samus's "crouching" sprite on the NES game was the first frame of her Jumping animation, when you're "crouching" after you get hit is because you're landing from your knock-back jump animation, so yeah, they could have recycled it in order to make a crouching sprite and allowed you to crouch and shoot to make the game less cheap, but of course they didn't...

and the only thing that "not making a bigger shot sprite" does is save up on a couple of tiles worth of memory, you say it would "look stupid" without even knowing what it could look like...
If they just drew an 8 x 24 sprite which looked like a wave and palette-swapped it, like they already palette-swap the wave beam, it would hardly cause any more flickering than a single 8 x 8 sprite waving around, and it would move faster and hit your enemies more consistently...

See what I meant with "Backwards difficulty curve"?

No, because it progresses like an RPG.   Once you're grinded and armed to the teeth, you fuck everything up because you aren't a walking pudding container.   Pretty normal.

The problem is that they've put the hardest part of the game right at the beginning, and after you get past it, hardly anything is nearly as much of a challenge anymore, and you no longer being a "walking pudding container" certainly contributes to that...

I've explained well enough with my Castlevania comparison... "More Weapons" doesn't automatically make the combat "Better", it's how the game uses said weapons which do!
Link's Awakening doesn't need more weapons because the way it uses its items already gives the game more variety, not only in its combat, but also in its exploration and puzzle-solving elements...

And I don't need to continue to play a game which I'm not enjoying to know that I'm not enjoying what I'm playing...

I said it makes it more interesting.  Remember how you said that thing about "not paying attention to what you read"?

I think you need to play through FFA and experience all of the weaponry, followed by Secret of Mana, the next progression in the matter, variety before commenting further.   How far did you actually get in the game before the lack of it being Links Awakening made you run away screaming?

I don't remember, it's been really long... I'm open to giving it another shot, but that still doesn't change the fact that I didn't care much for it when I first played it...
Nor does it change the fact that I can appreciate that Sword of Mana was trying to be a better version of it, even though it wasn't... I can't appreciate the same way as you, but I can appreciate in my own different way, which again, isn't any less or more valid than yours...

Maybe your problem isn't that you "fail to understand" anything, perhaps I haven't worded myself the best in there, what I think your problem is either that you think in absolutes, or you think that I think in absolutes, that I see no exceptions, that everything that I say is set in stone... It's not, there's no black and white, everything is a gradient, exceptions exist, and not everything needs to be questioned, especially not when the answer is either unimportant, or hiding in plain sight...

[Arkhan Asylum]

The thing is that you're talking as if I had access to this stuff while growing up... I have today, I've had for quite a while, but not when I was growing up, Internet to me back then was a luxury, for the most part I couldn't see what games were like before I got them unless I had already played them elsewhere, even though these things you mention already existed, so yes, I DO know what it's like to take a chance on a game...

You're still lucky in that you've sort of grown up in an era where you could emulate/find this stuff free.    How old were you even when you got a functional computer to emulate crap?  the fact that you were poor kind of saved you anyways.  You basically didn't have to waste money buying and locating all of this crap and now you can drown in it, lol.

Also, just because my perspective of the 8 and 16 bit games is different from yours, doesn't mean it's any less valid, just like my feelings towards whatever games we're talking about... You bashing the games that I like and saying that the games that you like are better isn't gonna convince me that they're better...

You realize while I was bashing LA, that I also said it's a 10/10, right?   I am able to bash and make fun of a good game.   The Zelda formula is pretty moronic. After LTTP, they should have cut that shit out.

It's not so much the games that your perspective is wonky on.  Maybe a little since you seem to have played stuff backwards and missed the magic of watching stuff turn into stuff...  it's more that you just missed that era where relying on magazines was a thing.

The internet seemed so great for this stuff and now it's a fucking disaster.  Bring back magazines please.

No, I said "Probably More", and that's not a definitive thing, because I didn't know how much you value your games, the same way you don't know how much I value mine...
I'm not changing what I said, I'm adding to what I said...
And I don't need to have a 'tragic backstory' with each of my games to have an attachment to them, whether I own them physically or not...

no, you don't need a sad thing tied to a game to have value tied to it.  It just drastically changes said value and generally supersedes money. 

My copy of LTTP is broken on the back and held back together with tape.   It just broke in half one day.  No idea why.  I don't replace it, and don't care that it's worth less now.  My grandma gave me it for my birthday.  That specific copy is now better than a brand new copy.

These kinds of values, I hope you don't really have to associate yet, because it blows ass.

I get that you value your stuff.  I hope everyone does.

You're the one who basically forces me to type out walls of text so that I can defend my points...

Welcome to PCEFX.   

The "Tangents" I go in are in order to make comparisons which better illustrate the points that I'm trying to make... Connect the dots and "vague s***" is no longer gonna be vague...

I don't feel like connecting the dots in your walls of text to figure out what you mean, because it still might not be what you mean.

*list of games*

A lot of the games you mentioned are not really that much better looking than Zelda 2, if at all.   You even named things I mentioned.   I think if you stick them side by side, you will find that they aren't really any better.

This game is awesome.

I also think Skate or Die 2's ramp level is some of the most impressive animation the NES has ever witnessed.

Yes, you could crouch and shoot in Metroid 2, which is a different, MUCH better game than Metroid 1 in my opinion... Also, the Game Boy could display 160 pixels worth of sprites in a horizontal line without flickering (10 sprites which can be as wide as 16 pixels each) which btw, is the whole horizontal resolution of the Game Boy, whereas the NES could only display 64 pixels worth of sprites in a horizontal line without flickering (8 sprites which can be as wide as 8 pixels only) so basically you can only have a 16 pixel wide character and 3 16 pixel wide enemies on the same horizontal line at a time...
Samus's "crouching" sprite on the NES game was the first frame of her Jumping animation, when you're "crouching" after you get hit is because you're landing from your knock-back jump animation, so yeah, they could have recycled it in order to make a crouching sprite and allowed you to crouch and shoot to make the game less cheap, but of course they didn't...

I don't know why you can't crouch in Metroid.  It's not a flicker issue.  It's likely a "oh we didn't think of that" issue with the controls and transitioning to morphball.   Welcome to the formative years of the series' that made Nintendo famous.

and the only thing that "not making a bigger shot sprite" does is save up on a couple of tiles worth of memory, you say it would "look stupid" without even knowing what it could look like...
If they just drew an 8 x 24 sprite which looked like a wave and palette-swapped it, like they already palette-swap the wave beam, it would hardly cause any more flickering than a single 8 x 8 sprite waving around, and it would move faster and hit your enemies more consistently...

Now, if they drew a giant wavy sprite for Metroid.... you realize the wave beam would no longer work like it does, right?  The sine-wave pattern is part of using it.   You would lose the challenge of timing and aiming it and at that point they might as well just let you shoot some big retarded looking Turrican beam from in front of you.  gross

I know what a bigger sprite might look like for a shot.   Do you think it's hard to imagine a bigger sprite?   It's not.  It's proportionate to Samus.   

I highly doubt they made Samus start with a cripplecannon for flicker reasons.  They did it to make the initial game harder, and the progression more challenging.    Case in point:  Link shoots a goddamn projectile across the screen.

Kid Icarus has the same kind of thing with arrow range.  It makes the game what it is. 

The problem is that they've put the hardest part of the game right at the beginning, and after you get past it, hardly anything is nearly as much of a challenge anymore, and you no longer being a "walking pudding container" certainly contributes to that...

That's how a lot of old RPGs work.   Once you grind out a bit, you only tend to die when you do something stupid.

I don't remember, it's been really long... I'm open to giving it another shot, but that still doesn't change the fact that I didn't care much for it when I first played it...
Nor does it change the fact that I can appreciate that Sword of Mana was trying to be a better version of it, even though it wasn't... I can't appreciate the same way as you, but I can appreciate in my own different way, which again, isn't any less or more valid than yours...

I'd play it again.  Or try Adventures of Mana.  If you didn't get very far you kind of missed out.

Maybe your problem isn't that you "fail to understand" anything, perhaps I haven't worded myself the best in there, what I think your problem is either that you think in absolutes, or you think that I think in absolutes, that I see no exceptions, that everything that I say is set in stone... It's not, there's no black and white, everything is a gradient, exceptions exist, and not everything needs to be questioned, especially not when the answer is either unimportant, or hiding in plain sight...

You speak in adverb laden absolute-esque statements.   If you have a point, you should just get it out there instead of expecting people to fill in the dots.   Everyone is going to fill them in different.




Can you really not play emulated crap on your 3DS?

I have an AceKard and never had a problem.   Did that change?  I haven't done it in awhile.

[Michirin9801]

*list of games*

A lot of the games you mentioned are not really that much better looking than Zelda 2, if at all.   You even named things I mentioned.   I think if you stick them side by side, you will find that they aren't really any better.

https://youtu.be/8AxUqp9XIM0

This game is awesome.

I also think Skate or Die 2's ramp level is some of the most impressive animation the NES has ever witnessed.   

https://youtu.be/HMDMde6BNdc

Yeah, those games look really friggin' good...
Here, I put together an image with some sprites side-by-side with Link's sprite from Zelda 2:


Yeah, I do think all of those (and more which I haven't bothered to add) look better than Link's sprite, and most of the games they're a part of I think look much better than Zelda 2 in general...

Just showing the sprites in here makes it look like there isn't much of a difference, most of those sprites are just 3 colours anyway, but the thing about sprites on the NES is that you can't really make them THAT much better without tiling them just right so that you can use more than one palette, or superimposing tricks, which lead to flicker (but some of these games do use superimposing sprites to get more colour and detail)
Those tricks are more worth it on the Game Boy Color where you could fill more of the screen real estate with sprites...

My issue with Zelda 2's graphics has mostly to do with the backgrounds, Zelda 2's sprites aren't "bad", but on top of the backgrounds, which are pretty bad, well, let's just say that the 'badness' of the BGs rubs off on the sprites...

Most of these other games have really good BGs for the NES, particularly the Sunsoft ones, also major props to Shatterhand...

Yes, you could crouch and shoot in Metroid 2, which is a different, MUCH better game than Metroid 1 in my opinion... Also, the Game Boy could display 160 pixels worth of sprites in a horizontal line without flickering (10 sprites which can be as wide as 16 pixels each) which btw, is the whole horizontal resolution of the Game Boy, whereas the NES could only display 64 pixels worth of sprites in a horizontal line without flickering (8 sprites which can be as wide as 8 pixels only) so basically you can only have a 16 pixel wide character and 3 16 pixel wide enemies on the same horizontal line at a time...
Samus's "crouching" sprite on the NES game was the first frame of her Jumping animation, when you're "crouching" after you get hit is because you're landing from your knock-back jump animation, so yeah, they could have recycled it in order to make a crouching sprite and allowed you to crouch and shoot to make the game less cheap, but of course they didn't...

I don't know why you can't crouch in Metroid.  It's not a flicker issue.  It's likely a "oh we didn't think of that" issue with the controls and transitioning to morphball.   Welcome to the formative years of the series' that made Nintendo famous.

and the only thing that "not making a bigger shot sprite" does is save up on a couple of tiles worth of memory, you say it would "look stupid" without even knowing what it could look like...
If they just drew an 8 x 24 sprite which looked like a wave and palette-swapped it, like they already palette-swap the wave beam, it would hardly cause any more flickering than a single 8 x 8 sprite waving around, and it would move faster and hit your enemies more consistently...

Now, if they drew a giant wavy sprite for Metroid.... you realize the wave beam would no longer work like it does, right?  The sine-wave pattern is part of using it.   You would lose the challenge of timing and aiming it and at that point they might as well just let you shoot some big retarded looking Turrican beam from in front of you.  gross

I know what a bigger sprite might look like for a shot.   Do you think it's hard to imagine a bigger sprite?   It's not.  It's proportionate to Samus.   

I highly doubt they made Samus start with a cripplecannon for flicker reasons.  They did it to make the initial game harder, and the progression more challenging.    Case in point:  Link shoots a goddamn projectile across the screen.

Kid Icarus has the same kind of thing with arrow range.  It makes the game what it is. 

I feel obligated to respect Metroid for what it pretty much pioneered, but it's not a well-designed game, not even close...
You need to look no further than the likes of Castlevania, Ninja Gaiden, Contra, Batman and even the Mario games, to see what a good challenge feels like on the NES, one where you're not forced to grind for health pickups for half an hour before you can even bother to try again every single time because the game is too cheap to re-spawn you with more than 30 HP, where you can always consistently hit your enemies instead of the bullets missing half the time, or simply not reaching them, or having enemies which are too short for you to hit...
None of those games do that, all of them have their enemies in places where you can easily dispatch them if you're good enough, the challenge doesn't come from not being able to do basic things, it comes from trying to do them well while taking into account tricky enemy and platform placement...

Metroid 2 is like night and day in comparison, it fixed almost everything that was wrong with the original, you can not only duck and shoot, but also jump and shoot downwards! The map layouts are also MUCH more interesting than corridors and shafts which look the same, the only things Metroid 2 lacks to make it truly great are colour and a map system... I can see why some people take issue with the cramped screen too, but that wasn't an issue to me...

The problem is that they've put the hardest part of the game right at the beginning, and after you get past it, hardly anything is nearly as much of a challenge anymore, and you no longer being a "walking pudding container" certainly contributes to that...

That's how a lot of old RPGs work.   Once you grind out a bit, you only tend to die when you do something stupid.

Although many of the RPGs I like do require an early-game grind, they're never as aggravating as the beginning of Adventure of Link...

Maybe your problem isn't that you "fail to understand" anything, perhaps I haven't worded myself the best in there, what I think your problem is either that you think in absolutes, or you think that I think in absolutes, that I see no exceptions, that everything that I say is set in stone... It's not, there's no black and white, everything is a gradient, exceptions exist, and not everything needs to be questioned, especially not when the answer is either unimportant, or hiding in plain sight...

You speak in adverb laden absolute-esque statements.   If you have a point, you should just get it out there instead of expecting people to fill in the dots.   Everyone is going to fill them in different.

Even though I state time and time again that it's all my opinion and that I don't expect you (or anyone) to agree, and respect yours, as well as that there are exceptions...

Can you really not play emulated crap on your 3DS?

I have an AceKard and never had a problem.   Did that change?  I haven't done it in awhile.

I have a DStwo, it's a DS flashcart so it can't take advantage of the 3DS's hardware, so I can only emulate things which work fine on the original DS...
Game Boy/Colour, Game Gear and Master System work A-OK, NES and PCE work somewhat OK, except the DS's resolution is lower so it has to crush the image in order to fit it on the screen so it's not ideal, also, PCE has pretty awful sound emulation (only wavetables with only 4 volume levels and at 4 bit depth, no samples, and the CD ADPCM is too quiet) and there are some graphical issues like no line-interruption (some background detail is lost in games like Magical Chase and Power Drift)

The DStwo has a dedicated GBA emulator that only it can run, but it kinda sucks, it runs at 30fps, I can play Puyo Pop, Final Fight One and KoF EX2 okay, but it's just unusable for any serious play... I tried ALTTP and Final Fantasy IV at it, they worked fine, but it's just not worth it with such a gimped emulation, some sections of FF4 were running at like, 5fps? Unacceptable...

Anything else is a no-go, yes there are emulators for more systems for the DS, but I've tried them, and they're not worth it... I hear good things about Neo Geo emulation on the DS, which I haven't tried yet, but if the system can't even do SNES or MD justice, I don't see Neo Geo being any better...

There's also the issue of the SMS/GG and the PCE emulator not being able to be on the same SD card without corrupting it, I've had issues with that time and time again, so to have to pick between one of my favourite systems with poor emulation and 2 systems I barely care about with decent emulation, I'll pick the former, I mean, at least I can play New Adventure Island on-the-go at full speed, only missing a little bit of detail and the drums...

My plan is to use the Homebrew Launcher, which works just like the Homebrew Channel on the Wii, except on the 3DS, but only when Nintendo stops updating the 3DS, I don't wanna run the risk of bricking my system, I can't afford another one after all...
There's already SNES and GBA emulators for the 3DS, and even a version of RetroArch for it (which hopefully supports PC engine because I could really use a decent PCE emulation on-the-go)
Then, and only then, will I play the rest of the SNES RPGs which I'm still missing, I have a much better time with RPGs on handhelds after all...

[Arkhan Asylum]

Some of those sprites are about the same in terms of interestingness.    I think I would play Zelda II before I go playing Shatterhand, though.   or Bonk on NES.    Zelda's other sprites that you left out are pretty great.   Ninja Gaiden's best sprite is him and some of the bosses.   The in-game basic enemies in NG1 are pretty stupid looking, honestly.

The health thing in metroid is a bit stupid, and I don't know why they didn't refill you.

However, I don't know that I would call Metroid poorly designed.  "not even close" is a pretty weak move.

You're comparing it to games that came after it, from a completely different genre.   

It did a lot of things right.     It's rough around the edges with a few unforgiving issues from back in the day like the health, and enemies killing you as you transition to the next room, but bad design is not really where you want to head with those criticisms. 

You are comparing it to level-transitioning action games with no save/restart features really that are meant to be finished in a sitting.   Excluding Simon's Quest.   

The enemy behaviors and placements, and the fact you can't shoot some of them until you get bombs, or better guns is part of the design.   You don't like it, but that doesn't make it a bad design.

[crazydean]

Did you guys know that early cars didn't have steering wheels? Also, they couldn't even go the current speed limit. Wow, what pieces of shit they were.

[xcrement5x]

I was reading the responses in this thread for awhile but wow, I gave up a bit back.  I commend you both for the endurance to even write them. 

[o.pwuaioc]

I was reading the responses in this thread for awhile but wow, I gave up a bit back.  I commend you both for the endurance to even write them.

I can't even figure out where it stopped even being about SoM...

[Gredler]

Yeah the wall of text here would take longer to read than playing through FFA FFS

[seieienbu]

I loved SoM back when it came out.  I have very fond memories of staying up all night playing it with a couple of my friends.  The Summer after 6th grade in particular, I remember after beating it we would start over again.  We played it through about 4 times that Summer.  One save we got to 99th level, ground all the spells to 8:99, and got the extra orbs so we had max weapons as well. 

I played through Secret of Mana again with my girlfriend about a year ago and it was kind of a slog to get through.  The fighting just doesn't work terribly well.  If you compare the combat from SoM to, say Oath in Felghana then SoM just feels boring.  I'm hoping that the new port makes the combat more entertaining and up to date. 

I like that the artwork is reminiscent of the original designs.  That said, it looks cheap and like a game that should've come out more than a decade ago.  I wouldn't exactly expect it to look like a multi million AAA title but I wish it didn't look so much like a game from two console generations ago.  I just hope they don't fuck up with the new music.  From the little that you can hear in the trailer it seems that aspect sounds good so far. 

I also hope that I can turn spoken dialogue off and just read text

[Arkhan Asylum]

The music is what worries me the  most.

SOM has a fucking amazing soundtrack.   It's probably the best Mana soundtrack.   The percussion, melodies, and ambient shit is all good.

SD3 had stupid music.   It had that reverbtunnel crap.   

[Gredler]

Impressions of the Demo playable at PAX West are not great. "Cheap" is a word I am hearing a lot

[Arkhan Asylum]

I am a little disappointed because I thought it was going to be like Dawn of Mana with a rotatey camera. 

You can watch this instead of watching the Gamespot one with moronic narration, or a bunch of gimpdicks online spewing their shitty opinions and saying things like "the music isn't pixelated" or other tryhard gamer BS.

I am hoping they make the mouths move.  I doubt it will happen, though.

The dialog scenes seem nice at least since there's varied camera angles.   

[crazydean]

Gameplay looks fine to me for a handheld title. I think it would be silly on the PS4, though. It's certainly not cutting edge but good enough in my eyes.

The voice acting is pretty sub-par. It reminds me of PS2/GCN RPG games like Tales of Symphonia or FFX. Right when voice acting started getting big in games but before they thought it was important for good dialog and actors.

[Arkhan Asylum]

The fact it's on PS4 is basically a side effect, I think, since it's basically just a PSVita / PSN game, and PS4 happens to do that too.

The gameplay itself doesn't look bad, though.

It's just not what I expected, so nostalgia feelies and stuff are about all it will probably do for me.

[seieienbu]

My big problem playing the game a year ago was the combat.  I felt that after playing games like Oath in Felghana that the 100% thing was really lame.  I was hoping for a complete overhaul to the combat system but it looks like that won't be the case.  This is disappointing.

[GohanX]

They want $40 for that shit? I love Mana, but put some effort into it if you want that much cash. This looks like a $10 Android port.