Gaming Forums => Nintendo Gaming => Topic started by: pokepal148 on August 22, 2013, 06:14:45 PM
Title: off topic remarks about nintendo games that are no longer relevant.
Post by: pokepal148 on August 22, 2013, 06:14:45 PM
even if SMB2 was not technically a mario game i'm kinda shocked that the NSMB games haven't brought back the veggies for something like this:
also on that subject...
Quote
Despite popular belief, there is evidence suggesting that Super Mario Bros. 2 was the true sequel to Super Mario Bros. Some time after the original game's completion, Nintendo's Kyoto-based R&D division began working on a vertical-scrolling Mario engine. It became clear early on that a vertical-scrolling game couldn't offer the same quality of platforming as the original Super Mario Bros. Shigeru Miyamoto then stepped in and added horizontally scrolling aspects to the game.
The prototype engine was originally designed around carrying, throwing, and piling up items and featured 2-player cooperative play, which even included the ability to throw other players to hard-to-reach places to progress further in the game. A deal with Fuji TV was struck during development, and the prototype eventually became Doki Doki Panic. Although cooperative play was dropped, the concepts of vertical scrolling and tossing around items to defeat enemies was incorporated into Doki Doki Panic, and in turn Super Mario Bros. 2.
intresting tidbit in my opinion
Title: Re: off topic remarks about nintendo games that are no longer relevant.
Post by: alegoicoe on August 22, 2013, 06:36:57 PM
Its funny how Nintendo is marketing Mario U multiplayer capabilities yet they decide not to include online multiplayer, I guess inline multiplayer has become irrelevant for Nintendo.
Title: Re: off topic remarks about nintendo games that are no longer relevant.
Post by: pokepal148 on August 22, 2013, 09:30:34 PM
Its funny how Nintendo is marketing Mario U multiplayer capabilities yet they decide not to include online multiplayer, I guess inline multiplayer has become irrelevant for Nintendo.
to be fair multiplayer for that kind of game is extremely difficult compared to say a shooter or something.
Title: Re: off topic remarks about nintendo games that are no longer relevant.
Post by: alegoicoe on August 22, 2013, 10:10:05 PM
Its funny how Nintendo is marketing Mario U multiplayer capabilities yet they decide not to include online multiplayer, I guess inline multiplayer has become irrelevant for Nintendo.
to be fair multiplayer for that kind of game is extremely difficult compared to say a shooter or something.
Come on man, the drop in/drop out feature can be easily implemented if Nintendo wanted to do it, I understand they are trying to rush that game in order to boost Wii U sales, but in turn in my perspective online multi-player could have been an even bigger system seller.
Title: Re: off topic remarks about nintendo games that are no longer relevant.
Post by: Luigi Dude on August 22, 2013, 10:59:44 PM
Come on man, the drop in/drop out feature can be easily implemented if Nintendo wanted to do it, I understand they are trying to rush that game in order to boost Wii U sales, but in turn in my perspective online multi-player could have been an even bigger system seller.
In a Mario Platformer, you can't afford any lag or else the games will be unplayable in the later levels were precise jumping is required. This is why online multiplayer in Mario platformers is still a long ways off because these games just aren't doable online at the moment.
Title: Re: off topic remarks about nintendo games that are no longer relevant.
Post by: Ymeegod on August 22, 2013, 11:19:18 PM
"This is why online multiplayer in Mario platformers is still a long ways off because these games just aren't doable online at the moment."
:)--indie games have been doing MP platforming jumping for years not to mention Rayman Legends is going have Online MP, just Nintendo doesn't add online. It's more of an Japanese thing where online MP isn't as big of a deal as Local MP.
Really doesn't have to deal with netcode at all since that's really up to the end user.
Title: Re: off topic remarks about nintendo games that are no longer relevant.
Post by: Phil on August 22, 2013, 11:20:13 PM
Yeah, in any kind of platformer, even the smallest amount of lag can screw things up considerably. LittleBigPlanet suffered from lag, but it didn't require the same amount of precision as a Mario game. That's why few platformers have online.
Rayman Legends will not have online multiplayer at all.
Title: Re: off topic remarks about nintendo games that are no longer relevant.
Post by: Wah on August 23, 2013, 12:45:49 AM
Just saying i hate lag...
Title: Re: off topic remarks about nintendo games that are no longer relevant.
Post by: alegoicoe on August 23, 2013, 01:01:19 AM
^cool pic ;)
Title: Re: off topic remarks about nintendo games that are no longer relevant.
Post by: Pixelated Pixies on August 23, 2013, 03:19:09 AM
Is Startropics worth playing?
I really want Nintendo to release Earthbound on 3DS. That would be great.
I'm thinking about picking up a copy of Star Fox Adventure. I've heard terrible things, but I'm genuinely curious about that game.
Title: Re: off topic remarks about nintendo games that are no longer relevant.
Post by: Ian Sane on August 23, 2013, 01:39:14 PM
You ever play Zelda clones like Illusion of Gaia or Crystalis where everything just feels a little off and unpolished compared to Zelda? That's what StarTropics is like, which is weird considering it's made by Nintendo so you figure they could do a Zelda ripoff right. Star Fox Adventures is the same idea. In theory I would figure that the Zelda formula is so good that I would also like the knock-offs as a way to get "more" Zelda but I don't. I find I keep getting frustrated by how inferior they are to the real thing. Zelda has made me an adventure game snob.
Any stigma on SMB2 for not being a "real" Mario game is getting hung up on a technicality. It's like blowing off your stepfather who loves and cares for you in favour of your biological father who ditched you and your mother and is an alcoholic wreck just because he's your "real" father. SMB2 is a much better sequel than Lost Levels and the platforming gameplay is worthy of the series. It's still an exceptional platformer made by the same guys as SMB1. Though I wish Nintendo would throw that gameplay into another Mario game. It's like even they can't get over it's "illegitimacy". I've love a 2D Mario game with the gameplay of SMW, with all the extra power-ups from SMB3 and elements from SMB2. So if you jump on a Goomba he squashes flat but if you jump on a Shy Guy you stand on top and can throw him. I'm sure both elements could mix in with no issue. Oh and I want this with sprites of course!
Title: Re: off topic remarks about nintendo games that are no longer relevant.
Post by: Ceric on August 23, 2013, 02:05:09 PM
Crystalis isn't a Zelda Clone. Zelda was never that infuriating. (I've beaten Crystalis back in the day if you ask)
Title: Re: off topic remarks about nintendo games that are no longer relevant.
Post by: MagicCow64 on August 23, 2013, 03:25:58 PM
I really want Nintendo to release Earthbound on 3DS. That would be great.
I'm thinking about picking up a copy of Star Fox Adventure. I've heard terrible things, but I'm genuinely curious about that game.
Ian's pretty much right. I kind of regret buying Star Tropics. I didn't finish it, because it got too crazy hard in combination with extremely stiff controls. I dig it's vibe and all, but there's no way I'll ever finish it until it gets the Wii U save state upgrade. It wouldn't be a waste of money necessarily, but I'd wait.
Star Fox Adventures isn't worth bothering with at this point, unless you're just really curious about shitshows. The gameplay is super bland/underdeveloped. And it never stops feeling awkward and shoehorned that this is a "Starfox" game.
Title: Re: off topic remarks about nintendo games that are no longer relevant.
Post by: Nemo on August 23, 2013, 11:14:07 PM
Ian, I actually feel the opposite as you. I'm sick of Zelda clones that ARE Zelda. In other words, I feel like every Zelda game is still Ocarina of Time, pretty much - same formula, going about things in the same ways.
Therefor, I enjoy the knock-offs more than Zelda. They feel fresher and I don't know always know exactly what to expect from a different series.
Also, I really liked Crystalis (though I agree it doesn't have the polish of a Zelda game).
Title: Re: off topic remarks about nintendo games that are no longer relevant.
Post by: pokepal148 on August 25, 2013, 12:05:22 AM
im currently continuing to replay pokemon heart gold/soul silver and barely beat the elite 4 (i was a bit underleveled and my team isn't the best typewise)
at this point i'm just trekking around kanto trying to train everyone up to around level 50 so i can steamroll the kanto gyms. my current team has a heavy weakness to rock and i'm considering switching ampharos out to counter that.
But i am absolutely amazed by how well they set up kanto in that game.
Title: Re: off topic remarks about nintendo games that are no longer relevant.
Post by: alegoicoe on August 25, 2013, 02:04:34 AM
im currently continuing to replay pokemon heart gold/soul silver and barely beat the elite 4 (i was a bit underleveled and my team isn't the best typewise)
at this point i'm just trekking around kanto trying to train everyone up to around level 50 so i can steamroll the kanto gyms. my current team has a heavy weakness to rock and i'm considering switching ampharos out to counter that.
But i am absolutely amazed by how well they set up kanto in that game.
Thats my favorite pokemon game aside from the original and the one inhave played the least of, I seriously have to go back to that game.
Title: Re: off topic remarks about nintendo games that are no longer relevant.
Post by: MagicCow64 on August 25, 2013, 04:17:21 AM
My last experience with a Pokemon game was getting stomped by the final four in Gold so badly that I never picked up the game again. And I had the red Gyrados and everything!
Title: Re: off topic remarks about nintendo games that are no longer relevant.
Post by: Stratos on August 25, 2013, 08:23:15 AM
Red/Blue and Gold/Silver really were the heart and soul of the Pokemon series.
I logged the most hours in those games. Not sure which got more.
I lost steam in Heart Gold again. I had hoped to have beaten it by the time X/Y came out. I also never finished Black.
Title: Re: off topic remarks about nintendo games that are no longer relevant.
Post by: nickmitch on August 25, 2013, 02:54:38 PM
Gold/Silver had some pacing issues that carried over in the remakes. I remember the first time I played them and felt under-leveled the entire game. What ended up carrying me was two Pokemon that I level ground from eggs (so, level 1), and a team almost entirely designed to beat Lance. The remakes were better since you could get a larger variety in your teams/movesets. Also, I broadband internet existed everywhere I went, so I could reference Bulbapedia at all times.
Title: Re: off topic remarks about nintendo games that are no longer relevant.
Post by: toddra on August 25, 2013, 06:10:51 PM
Star Fox Adventures hate is undeserved. It mostly stems from sour grapes that Rare left Nintendo nothing more. When it was new people loved it, then the Rare thing happened and suddenly the game sucked, then people tried to go back and say all Rare games sucked and were over hyped.
Star Fox Adventures is a really great game don't listen to the haters. The ONLY complaint I had was the ending, which at the time was the prevailing complaint but then like I said the Rare **** happened and suddenly it was a terrible game. Is it worth playing now, depend, it is an early GameCube game so it hasn't aged that well, the graphics are okay for what they were trying to do but the game really looks dated. The gameplay is mostly alright, the shooter levels do feel tacked on but that shouldn't take away from an other wise great game. It does have a pretty engaging story, complex puzzle solving, and some intense boss fights. Where it really fails is the voice acting can be really awful at times, the story falls apart at the end and the shooter levels really should have been removed.
I think if it had stayed true to just being Dinosaur Island and left Fox and company out, or Rare would have never left Nintendo, people would hail it as a classic.
As for Crystalis, that game is a mess. It starts out great, then it falls apart quickly. It's not terrible but you have to really want to make progress or else you just end up giving up. That is true for a lot of those types of Nintendo NES games though.
Neutopia is a decent Zelda clone but it is on a system hardly anyone even knows about let alone has. I think it was on Virtual Console but I am not sure.
Title: Re: off topic remarks about nintendo games that are no longer relevant.
Post by: NWR_insanolord on August 25, 2013, 06:51:06 PM
Star Fox being shoehorned into it and the whole Rare situation may have magnified people's feelings toward the game, but Star Fox Adventures was never a good game. It wasn't a horrible game either, but it was thoroughly mediocre, with bland combat and the epitome of Rare's obsession with needless collecting.
Title: Re: off topic remarks about nintendo games that are no longer relevant.
Post by: toddra on August 25, 2013, 07:12:04 PM
I think you are remembering wrong dude, all the reviews of the game were excellent when it was released, it didn't start getting hate until after Rare started releasing games for Xbox. It even holds an 82 on Metacritic, far from mediocre. In fact it got mostly 9 and 10's during it's initial release. All of the negative reviews are after the fact. At the time the major complaint was the ending, some felt it ruined the whole game, and they never forgave it. That was magnified by the other stuff but it was hailed as a great game when it was new.
Title: Re: off topic remarks about nintendo games that are no longer relevant.
Post by: pokepal148 on August 25, 2013, 07:33:58 PM
perhaps it has aged poorly then idk i haven't played it
Title: Re: off topic remarks about nintendo games that are no longer relevant.
Post by: MagicCow64 on August 25, 2013, 08:04:46 PM
I didn't play Star Fox Adventures until it had already been out for four years or so, and regardless of the aesthetic problems resultant from the IP mash-up, the gameplay is completely uninteresting. It's not even complicated enough to be considered a proper Zelda clone. Parts of it feel unfinished, particularly toward the end. Rare had already lost its mojo at that point.
Title: Re: off topic remarks about nintendo games that are no longer relevant.
Post by: toddra on August 25, 2013, 08:19:35 PM
That is part of the problem hence why I said it hasn't aged well but when it was new it was a highly rated game and very well respected. Of course if you played it four years latter then chances are you had been exposed to superior games by then but in the early days of Gamecube it was one of the better games around.Even this sites own review states the same, it was a good game for its time but rated low for lastability/replay value. http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/review/3959 (http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/review/3959) which further backs up what my point was, at the time it was heralded. The hate came latter. It is no different than Sega, at their peek they were a well respected company and the Genesis out sold the SNES up until Sega abandoned it and Nintendo took the lead, but history has been rewritten to make it look like Sega was always a damn joke and people tend to forget how awesome they were at one time.
To clarify I am not saying the game *is* a masterpeice but pointing out that it was at one time considered a great game. If one can keep that in mind and enjoy it for what it is they might be able to like it. But it does have flaws that by today's standards are hard to over look and the ending did ruin the rest of the game. That was my biggest complaint.
Title: Re: off topic remarks about nintendo games that are no longer relevant.
Post by: Stratos on August 25, 2013, 10:17:50 PM
Starfox Adventures is a good game. It is worth a playthrough. Not worth a replay. I only wanted to replay one part: the 'fear' boss. Ifthere were more parts like that the game would have withstood the test of time better. I'd love to read some developer commentary on the production cycle of this game. It could have been great even with starfox forced in.
I think they needed more time and that was true problem. Nintendo dumped Rare because they were not efficient in their development cycles. Remember both Banjo-Kazooie and Conker were delayed multiple times for reasons like quality control. That was how Nintendo Power cited it. Nintendo constantly had to clean up their work.
Other than the loss of the IPs, Nintendo made a good decision in dumping Rare.
Title: Re: off topic remarks about nintendo games that are no longer relevant.
Post by: BranDonk Kong on August 25, 2013, 10:34:50 PM
I would imagine most reviewers only played it for a couple of hours before posting their thoughts. It was pretty good, but it was also pretty bad.
Title: Re: off topic remarks about nintendo games that are no longer relevant.
Post by: Ian Sane on August 26, 2013, 01:55:22 PM
I'm a major Rare supporter. I think it was incredibly stupid for Nintendo to sell Rare off. Rare may have turned to crap with MS but the Rare/Nintendo team was really something special and the threw that away for nothing. The worst Rare game during the Nintendo years was SFA, which was probably hurt by the circumstances surrounding its development.
But SFA really isn't very good. It's not just the Star Fox elements being tacked on. The emphasis on collecting doodads is through the roof. The fighting is pretty much straight up button mashing. Ricky is super annoying. The real-time menu is very good at getting your ass killed as you try to switch items in the middle of a fight. There are also all sorts of little annoying specific parts. The test of strength where you had to button mash like crazy was terrible (I had to get my brother to do it for me) and I gave up on an annoying part where I had to move exploding barrels through some sort of air ducts. After having it fail for the 100th time I gave up on the game for good. I wanted to like it but it was just an exercise in tedium.
But I think it COULD have been a good game under different circumstances. Unlike Rare's other Nintendo games it feels like it lacks enthusiasm. The game was moved from the N64 to the Gamecube and had Star Fox shoehorned in by decree of almighty Nintendo and surely the guys working on it knew that Nintendo and Rare were getting divorced (a quick look at Wikipedia reveals that the sale took place literally the day after SFA was released). If I had come up with Dinosaur Planet and then had all these outside circumstances butting in I would lose emotional connection to project and would phone it in. It wouldn't feel like "my" game anymore. And I figure that's exactly what Rare did. I figure if it stayed as Dinosaur Planet and Rare and Nintendo stuck together the game would have turned out as well as Rare's other Nintendo games.
And what reason did Nintendo have to sell Rare since their only truly poor game under Nintendo was the last one and Nintendo certainly would have started negotiations with MS well before they knew how the game was turning out (DK64 wasn't so hot but I see that game as hubris as opposed to poor work)? So they took a while to make their games? Uh, yeah, and how many times has Nintendo themselves done the same thing? It was just typical short-sighted Nintendo penny-pinching. Did they even for a second consider the value of the variety to their lineup that Rare provided? How would the N64 have done without Goldeneye, a game Nintendo themselves would NEVER have made? How good of an idea was it to go from being the top console for FPS games on the N64 to being by far the WORST for the genre on the Gamecube just as FPS was to become the most common and popular genre in videogames? Rare was the MVP of the N64 - the one concession Playstation fans were willing to give Nintendo. But let's just piss that all away and scratch our heads while the Gamecube flounders.
Title: Re: off topic remarks about nintendo games that are no longer relevant.
Post by: Luigi Dude on August 26, 2013, 03:44:15 PM
The thing is Nintendo didn't really sell Rare since they never owned them. Nintendo had 49% of the studio while the Stamper Bros owned the majority 51%. The Stampers wanted to sell their majority but Nintendo didn't feel Rare was worth the price the Stampers were asking for and so the Stampers offered it to other companies and Microsoft ended up being the one to buy it.
So it's not like Nintendo suddenly said they didn't like Rare anymore and sold their ass to Microsoft as punishment. Had the Stampers not gotten greedy then Nintendo and Rare would still be working to this day.
Title: Re: off topic remarks about nintendo games that are no longer relevant.
Post by: toddra on August 26, 2013, 03:52:58 PM
Ian's remarks are exactly why I drew that conclusion. The game was no different than any real Zelda game, **** people talk about a certain dungeon that is damn near impossible as the highlight of the series but when a game that doesn't star everyone's favorite elven hero suddenly it's a bad game? I beat it in less than a week and it took me twenty years to finally finish Zelda NES. My sister who was 17 at the time beat it no problem same with this eight year old girl she used to baby sit. The final boss was a piece of cake it was so easy it should have been a crime.
Let's not evaluate it based on the controversy lets just look at the game, Donkey Kong Country, etc are notorious collect-a-thons but those are heralded as great games. Zelda games are revered due to their difficulty and if one is too easy it gets a bad rep. There were no other games at the time it was released that came anywhere near the level of graphical detail, depth, scope, and cinematics that game had. It was easily on par with Metroid Prime but because of the controversy people refuse to give it a fair shake. I call BS on it because not just the really great reviews but because those who do hate on it tend to admit to not finishing the game. Is it Zelda good, no by no means, personally I felt it was on par with if not better than Wind Waker but that is a bannable offense in the minds of some Nintendo fans.
Contra is almost unbeatable without cheating and that is regarded as one of the greatest games of all time, the difficulty of Star Fox Adventures is not in the controls which were a piece of cake once you mastered them, no different than Metroid Prime by the way which was just as complicated at times. I stand by my belief that it was the controversy and the Star Fox debacle being the root of this games hate nothing more. People tend to let their emotions get in the way of having a good time. Thankfully I skipped most of Rares games on the N64 and I wasn't a huge fan of Star Fox to begin with so I went in with an open mind and guess what, I enjoyed it tremendously. Those who admit to hating it also freely admit to either never beating it or bringing up the rare incident only providing further support to my claims. Even so it's all in the past and a newcomer who has no emotional ties to Rare or Star Fox should be advised to give it a play through and judge for themselves. But keeping in mind it is incredibly dated by todays standards, being it is over a decade old.
Title: Re: off topic remarks about nintendo games that are no longer relevant.
Post by: Ian Sane on August 26, 2013, 04:53:55 PM
The thing is Nintendo didn't really sell Rare since they never owned them. Nintendo had 49% of the studio while the Stamper Bros owned the majority 51%. The Stampers wanted to sell their majority but Nintendo didn't feel Rare was worth the price the Stampers were asking for and so the Stampers offered it to other companies and Microsoft ended up being the one to buy it.
So it's not like Nintendo suddenly said they didn't like Rare anymore and sold their ass to Microsoft as punishment. Had the Stampers not gotten greedy then Nintendo and Rare would still be working to this day.
I would figure Rare's IP like Banjo, Perfect Dark or Killer Instinct would have been worth the price alone since the general public associated them as Nintendo IP. Imagine some hypothetical situation where R&D1 was somehow their own entity and were going to leave and take Kid Icarus and Metroid with them. What price would be too high to let those Nintendo franchises leave? Realistically Nintendo lost some of their franchises by letting Rare leave.
Though now I wonder if that's why Nintendo seems so much more sequel-focused then before, how almost every partnership seems to involve pre-existing Nintendo IP. They don't want the partner to have their own IP that's associated with Nintendo but would be taken away if the partnership disolved. If Good Feel make's Kirby's Epic Yarn instead of the new IP they originally had planned for it the game's rights must remain with Nintendo forever because of Kirby. Hell, maybe that's why they changed Dinosaur Planet to Star Fox - so that whoever bought Rare couldn't port a Gamecube exclusive to a different system.
Title: Re: off topic remarks about nintendo games that are no longer relevant.
Post by: pokepal148 on August 26, 2013, 05:30:28 PM
can we take this whole rareware discussion elsewhere...
Title: Re: off topic remarks about nintendo games that are no longer relevant.
Post by: toddra on August 26, 2013, 06:33:46 PM
I am confused isn't that like the point of the thread?
Title: Re: off topic remarks about nintendo games that are no longer relevant.
Post by: Wah on August 26, 2013, 06:34:18 PM
I dig at me that's what!
Title: Re: off topic remarks about nintendo games that are no longer relevant.
Post by: pokepal148 on August 26, 2013, 07:04:11 PM
I am confused isn't that like the point of the thread?
yes but the discussion is moving more towards revisionist history...
You don't own the thread, mate. Quit member moderating.
Title: Re: off topic remarks about nintendo games that are no longer relevant.
Post by: Fatty The Hutt on August 28, 2013, 01:59:21 PM
Started playing Kirby Dream Course on the Wii U VC two nights ago. Great game. Never played it before. I would love a 3DS version (not a port but a new game) because the game has a nice "chill" pace and would be fun to noodle around with on my commute.
My son and I were playing for awhile and started to get into purposely trolling with the game, trying to make outrageous shots. Made us laugh pretty hard. Would be neat to see an incentive system worked into a sequel game to award "trick" shots and earn spendable points or something.
Title: Re: off topic remarks about nintendo games that are no longer relevant.
Post by: Phil on August 28, 2013, 04:35:59 PM
I would like a new Mole Mania.
Title: Re: off topic remarks about nintendo games that are no longer relevant.
Post by: toddra on August 28, 2013, 05:28:02 PM
If Nintendo is going to dig up old franchises to resurrect can I suggest they find out how to acquire the rights to Turrican and bring that into the new millennium?
Title: Re: off topic remarks about nintendo games that are no longer relevant.
Post by: Toruresu on August 28, 2013, 05:30:51 PM
NES Punch Out. It's been oh so long and I STILL can't defeat Bald Bull.
Title: Re: off topic remarks about nintendo games that are no longer relevant.
Post by: lolmonade on August 29, 2013, 12:51:00 PM
If Nintendo is going to dig up old franchises to resurrect can I suggest they find out how to acquire the rights to Turrican and bring that into the new millennium?
I LOVED that game as a kid, but I played it on an Amiga computer...what consoles did that franchise release on?
I need to revisit that and see if it holds up.
Title: Re: off topic remarks about nintendo games that are no longer relevant.
Post by: toddra on August 29, 2013, 06:31:05 PM
The first Turrican was also on Turbo Grafx 16 and Genesis, both were superior to the Amiga in different ways. Then there were the Genesis games Mega Turrican which was Turrican 3 on Amiga and Universal Soldier on Genesis which was Turrican 2 on Amiga. The SNES had two original games Super Turrican and Super Turrican 2. There was supposed to be a 3D sequel for the N64 but it somehow fell a part.
Title: Re: off topic remarks about nintendo games that are no longer relevant.
Post by: lolmonade on August 29, 2013, 09:02:44 PM
NES Punch Out. It's been oh so long and I STILL can't defeat Bald Bull.
Bald Bull gives me fits when fighting him, but it's the 2nd fight with Don Flamenco that stops me in my tracks. I've never been able to get past him, I just can't time his special move right.
Title: Re: off topic remarks about nintendo games that are no longer relevant.
Post by: BranDonk Kong on August 29, 2013, 11:20:36 PM
I think I just realized that the intro to DragonForce's "Through the Fire and Flames" is the same as the "guitar part" of Bowser's Castle(s) in Super Mario Bros...or at least very close.
Title: Re: off topic remarks about nintendo games that are no longer relevant.
Post by: Wah on August 29, 2013, 11:21:39 PM
Good work! ;)
Title: Re: off topic remarks about nintendo games that are no longer relevant.
Post by: pokepal148 on September 01, 2013, 02:10:52 PM
am i the only one who thinks luigi's whole kitune thing for the raccoon/tanooki suit is stupid.
I also think the statue ability should have been a switch palace type deal.
and i am very dissapointed there wasn't a level based on this (http://www.tokenfemalegamer.com/Wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Super-Mario-3D-Land.jpg)
Title: Re: off topic remarks about nintendo games that are no longer relevant.
Post by: pokepal148 on May 11, 2014, 08:02:07 PM
Been playing NSMB2 because I picked it up recently and while I agree that the level design isn't as good as Mario U there are definitely alot of points in the game where you go "ok that's pretty clever."
