Violent By Design wrote:
Kirby Superstar - The only Kirby game I played to completion, I was pretty underwhelmed since this is supposed to be the best one. I remember one night I was playing this on another TV at a friends house while everyone was playing Rockband. I beat it in like 20 minutes or what ever, and I was like "was that it?". It was pretty mindless, albeit I see some of the appeal, but baby difficulty games are a major turn off to me unless the controls feel really good or there is a plot or something.
20 minutes? Baby Difficulty?
Sounds like you only beat Spring Breeze, the first and easiest of the '8 games' in Kirby Superstar. 20 minutes would be incredibly fast to have beaten Dyna Blade, Meta Knight Returns, The Great Cave Offensive and Milky Way Wishes too.
It was probably the first level, but I beat all of those games in one sitting regardless. It was a while ago and when ever my friends play Rockband time gets very hazy with me.
None of the game is crazy hard, but Spring Breeze is meant to be a push over. It's a glorified tutorial that doubles as a remake of the first Kirby game, Kirby's Dream Land.
I dunno why you took exception with the baby difficulty comment. Kirby games are meant for 5 year olds, I suppose that is insulting to people, but they're supposed to be simple and easy. I bull dosed through Kirby Superstar my first try, while being distracted, and I don't think I'm necessarily a Kirby savant.
Violent By Design wrote:Kirby games are meant for 5 year olds
No, they're not. Mario's Early Years is meant for 5 year olds.
That's more for 3-4 year olds, thus "pre-school". I was in Kindergarten and could play Kirby at 5. Then again, there were a few games I could do at 5 that aren't "meant" for 5 year olds. Kirby is still on the younger side, even if it isn't for 5 year olds per se.
Sure, at 5 I could beat Mega Man 2. I was more criticizing his means of expressing his criticism. The Kirby games are on the easy side. But I don't think a game's difficulty is necessarily indicitive of its quality. I've had a lot of fun with and enjoyed games that I found incredibly easy and/or incredibly hard. I've also hated games that I found incredibly easy or incredibly hard. I don't necessarily think difficulty by itself is a valid criticism of a game, at least not as the sole reason for criticism. I think such a criticism needs to be explored, to say why something is difficult or why something is of quality.
What have we done? Now the ugly side of SNES gaming comes out!
Super Double Dragon was the only rental I ever played once and returned right away. It's slow, the levels are long, there's not as much going for it as the NES games had.
I like Yoshi's Island and Star Fox.
I've only played FF4 on the SNES. I understand there's better versions out there.
I still need to play DKC3 but I can never get into it.
Xeogred wrote:The obvious answer is that it's time for the Dreamcast 2.
Speaking of difficulty, I once - as an experiment - directed my then three-year-old daughter to level up my party in Final Fantasy VI Advance by teaching her how to move the characters on screen and press the "A" button. She accomplished that goal, proving to me that - if not for the reading skills required to play them - many 16-bit JRPGs (7th Saga excluded, of course) are also easy enough for pre-schoolers. (Despite the very low difficulty, many, many members of this forum are fans of that genre.)
EDIT: Also, have any of you tried playing some of the SNES games for pre-schoolers? Without instruction manuals, a few of them are pretty cryptic, and my experience with them leads me to belive that playing through some of them without a manual is like trudging through an old 8-bit PC dungeon crawler...
Ack wrote: But I don't think a game's difficulty is necessarily indicitive of its quality.
I dunno, just based on your defensiveness over it it kinda implies you do. I never said easy games are bad and even expressed how I could enjoy an easy game.
I think the fact of the matter is, I called it a game for 5 year olds, and people don't like to be associated with 5 year olds, so that is the same thing as me just saying the game is terrible.
Kirby is a game for little kids. 5-8 years old, it is not supposed to be challenging in the slightest. I don't understand the controversy, that is why HAL makes the game. People who are older like it yes, I like the WWE but I am still fully aware it is for kids.
Ack wrote:Sure, at 5 I could beat Mega Man 2. I was more criticizing his means of expressing his criticism. The Kirby games are on the easy side. But I don't think a game's difficulty is necessarily indicitive of its quality. I've had a lot of fun with and enjoyed games that I found incredibly easy and/or incredibly hard. I've also hated games that I found incredibly easy or incredibly hard. I don't necessarily think difficulty by itself is a valid criticism of a game, at least not as the sole reason for criticism. I think such a criticism needs to be explored, to say why something is difficult or why something is of quality.
Well he didn't really say the game sucked. He just doesn't like easy games.
It's not a mark on the quality, it's just his own subjective personal preference.
Anyway I like Kirby, I think Super Star is better enjoyed if you've played some of the other games first since it's pretty self-referential. Kirby's Adventure on the NES will always be my favorite.
I have been reading this thread for a while and even though I actually own the system or games I play the snes through my xbox. I have been playing final fight 3. It's a fun game. Does it count if I play romsthru my xbox or do I need the original system and games to write on this thread? I do know how people hate roms and emulators.
