In other news, StarTropics and King of Fighters '94 came out today in North America. The debate may rage elsewhere, though here at the Nintendo World Report I daresay our fans in the forums will understand more why we have recommended an outdated NES adventure game over a classic, some may even say “classy" fighting game. Perhaps the debate should center on narrative, which in adventure games usually leads the player to the exploration of locations and identification with a lead character, while in a fighting game the very code that holds the story is dead weight on the disc or cartridge. Yet at the same time I could see someone defend a fighting game for allowing a more fleshed out relationship between player and character, where the movements of the player translate so directly to those of the character that they seem to be in a communication with one another. Perhaps too the debate should discuss the importance of competition in video games, where fighting games (like puzzle games) seem to center on fighting an “opponent" who is singular and often human, while adventure games often have you fighting not just enemies in a world but the world itself.
Or perhaps fighting games just suck. Tell me in our talkback thread. How wrong am I?
Cost: 500 Wii Points ($5)
Players: 1
Controllers: Wii Remote, Wii Classic, GameCube
ESRB Rating: Everyone (Mild Fantasy Violence)
Released: 12/1/90
Click here for a video preview
This sleeper classic from Nintendo combines Zelda-ish action stages with a maze-like overworld closer to Zelda II. But StarTropics is no copycat -- it has a strange pacing and tropical style that set it apart from anything else. The quirky story has young Mike Jones searching for his uncle, Dr. "J" Jones, and things get progressively weirder as you get deeper into the game. Though not an extremely long adventure, StarTropics is challenging, crammed full of secrets, and truly unique. You'll have no problem getting five bucks' worth of playing out of it (if you get stuck, don't be ashamed to check a walkthrough).
The way Mike moves and jumps can take some time to get used to, but it starts to make more and more sense as the game's level design philosophy is revealed. StarTropics features great NES graphics and memorable music, too. The original game was packaged with a letter from Dr. J that you eventually had to dip into water for a secret code -- this feature has been cleverly recreated in the Virtual Console's built-in manual. One thing the manual doesn't explain very well is the inventory system; after pausing, press down to access Mike's magical items, including red potions and snowmen. The second boss is nearly impossible without using the latter item. Despite such confusing elements, StarTropics is a polished and unusual adventure game that holds up very well today. Take this opportunity to catch up with a classic, semi-obscure little gem of a game. - Jonathan Metts
Cost: 900 Wii Points ($9)
Players: 1-2
Controllers: Wii Remote, Wii Classic, GameCube
ESRB Rating: Teen (Mild Fantasy Violence)
Released: 1994
Click here for a video preview
Full disclosure: I don't play or really like fighting games. I mean, I like the occasional Street Fighter, but only when I'm playing against someone of equal talents, by which I mean, someone who has never played a fighting game before ever.
So I drank a glass of Bailey's and spent an hour or so with King of Fighters '94. How is it different from other fighting games, as far as I can see? Well, it has a neat team system where you pick three characters instead of one, and when you die instead of just getting “another life" your character is tapped out and the next one rotates in. This adds some variety and challenge since you must know not only your character's moves, but the moves of all three of your opponents.
Other than that and the sharp music, I can't tell you what's so great about this game. It felt like a fighting game in that I pushed a lot of buttons, tried out some combos, fought to rise in the ranks, and failed. Am I willing to admit that I'm biased against fighting games? Sure. I'm also willing to state that anyone who plays this genre exclusively has some pretty messed up primary concerns in video gaming. But I'm not recommending the whole genre for fans, just any game that has you memorizing complex button combinations in order to play it competently. I got pounded into ground beef while playing this game, and there isn't much hope for me to improve. I honestly believe, or maybe it's hope, that most gamers just mash their way through fighting games. When it comes to that, King of Fighters seems mash-worthy. No cheap kills, no overpowered characters (and no interesting ones either), no sloppy level or graphical design. King of Fighters '94 is somewhat different from other fighters I've played, but not that much. - Evan Burchfield
Props to VG Museum for the screenshots.
Quote
Originally posted by: S-U-P-E-R
hnnnnnnng
Quote
Originally posted by: NewsBot
First chance this year to piss everyone off.
Quote
Originally posted by: mekoex
Okay, I'll have to admit I'm peeved. Why? Because reviews for a game in a genre the reviewer has no interest in was stupid back when EGM did it and it's just as stupid now. If you have no interest in the very foundation of a title you're covering, the review is worth, as the censored English would say, "eff all".
You realize that when a person reads a review, it's not because they care what your opinion is. If I wanted assorted opinions I'd find someone's crappy blog, and I view Planet GameCube's successor with a significantly higher air of legitimacy than that. When someone goes to look at a review, 9 times out of 10, it's to make a purchase decision. Hence, your review of KOF is worth jack squat.
There's a ton of things you could include in a review of a classic fighter that would actually be relevant to fighting game players, good or bad. Someone who grew up on Guilty Gear X or Street Fighter Alpha (a 10-year-old getting into either game when they came out would be in his late teens or early 20's by now) might appreciate a warning about rougher animation that they're used to, or hit timing that's significantly less immediately intuitive than the more recent, optimized games offer. In other words, "For Fans" might really not even remotely hit. Never mind some kid who *hasn't* played many fighters but finds them interesting might wanna give it a whirl, and nine bucks may very well be all he has to spend for the next month on games. Not everyone likes adventure titles, guy.
I've been playing video games since SF2 as well, and personally, I think KOF is a bit of a waste (it was basically SNK's answer to Street Fighter 2 and it didn't really get any better for the next 10 years, odd given the near-yearly sequels). However, think about how annoying this review process would be for anything else. Imagine looking for a grill for your summer barbecue. You go to Amazon, find one you might be interested in, and when you get to the editorial review, it's by some dick who does haute cuisine and finds the idea of using grills to put meals together disgusting. Then he blows a paragraph giving the item in question a cursory glance and insults its userbase. Exactly what good would that review do you?
The entire practice of reviewing something you don't like on a fundamental level is not only insulting at its core to your readers, it's outright irresponsible as a critic.
Quote
Originally posted by: djunknown
The fact that Mr.Burchfield admitted to drinking an alcholic beverage during the review process, a genre that requires your full attention of mind and thumbs, is equally disturbing.
Quote
Originally posted by: Djunknown
The fact that Mr.Burchfield admitted to drinking an alcholic beverage during the review process, a genre that requires your full attention of mind and thumbs, is equally disturbing.