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 f*cking 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 f*ckall 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 f*ck 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...