u/karmakosmik1352

I had this game as a kid but never finished it - which I made up for now. (It is awesome and it is intense, atm I wouldn't even dare to go beyond Normal mode, though.)

I always wondered how this game pulls of all the action that's going on without any (noteworthy) slowdown on the SNES in 1992. There were high profile and experienced studios like Konami with Gradius III (1990) and Irem with Super R-Type (1991), both of which are go-to examples for awful slowdowns on the system and in general, there seemed to be consensus that the SNES is not made for shooters. While Compile also had a respectable track record, I wonder what they did differently. Konami somewhat made up for that with Axelay (1992), and Irem with R-Type III (1993), but I feel like Super Aleste is a lot more packed with projectile and enemy sprites (the screenshots here do not quite capture that I'm afraid). The sprite count especially on the harder game modes is just insane for SNES standards.

Also, I just realized that the game is part of the Aleste series, which I was entirely unaware of. Did you folks play other games of the series? Which ones would you recommend?

I remember being a bit disappointed when I noticed it turned out slightly skewed, but in hindsight I guess it's alright for a 13yo.

I just finished Final Fantasy Adventure and I'm genuinely baffled by how good this game is for a 1991 Gameboy title, two years before Link's Awakening was released (and even a few months ahead of A Link to the Past). For a GB title it is quite epic in length and also the story is really good for such an early title.

Must have been mindblowing, being a GB kid in the early ninties playing this game. I noticed that several gameplay ideas were introduced here which I actually attributed to later games, such as the use of a whip to overcome pits (similar to ALttP hookshot), or riding the trolleys while hitting levers to adjust track switches (I don't remember, was that first in the Oracle games or already in LA?) - so this title was really innovative at the time.

I do have a question though (mild spoiler warning here):

While playing the game I kept wondering what aspects did the developers adopt from FF I-III, which were released earlier, and which aspects actually were created for FFA in the first place and only then exploited for FF? I read that Square worked on this game here *before* the first FF was released - around 1987 - but then put it on hold for some years. It was initially supposed to be a five-disc Famicom Disc System title, which turned out to be too ambitious. When I saw the Chocobos, the Moogles, the Airship, etc. I wondered if the (initially planned) FFA actually did it first, or if Square took those from FF when the made the Gameboy adoption.

Do you folks know about this?

As a kid, I was always a bit jealous of Genesis owners when it comes to this game. I loved Super Ghouls 'n Ghosts, but I never got to play this one, now I finally played it and I think it is the most fun of all. I still like the music and graphics of Super better but the gameplay here is much easier and the unlimited continues considerably reduce the pressure, which results in a much more fun experience, at least for me. I realize I'm still on practice mode, but still, comparing it to normal mode of Super should be fair.

Not sure if I'm right with this assessment, but I think it is much more forgiving - is this the general consensus? Also, what's actually the difference to the Arcade version, is there any?

I love the Artoria Edition, btw., shout out to GoodLuckTrying, thanks a ton for your service!

EDIT: Meant to type "not youR girl" of course. 🙄

I played through all three GB titles for the first time and I feel like Legends is not as bad as Reddit makes you believe it is. Certainly, for the time it arrived it was not a great technical achievement. I can also see how fans were disappointed with the inferior music. The bosses are not as creative as in Belmont's Curse, so this is also a downgrade. The collectables that you pick up and can't really use don't make sense, so that's also weird.

I did like the story, and playing a strong female character in a relatively early Castlevania was refreshing; the level design is not at all bad, the controls are considerably upgraded, especially since you finally can adjust your jump mid-air. Everything does not feel so sluggish, finally. Difficulty wise I felt it's on the easy side, in particular due to the ability to replenish your live for 20 hearts, what a bargain.

I wouldn't pick it up frequently, but it's still a fun playthrough. For me, it is certainly better than The Adventure, idk why it is mostly disposed as the worst of the three. I suppose, it's bad memories on the background of expectations anno 1997, which is for. But apparently, this stuck. From a today's standpoint, where this does not really matter, it's actually reasonably fun and doesn't deserve the rap.

Btw: What's the deal with this six-digit "hit score", did any of you make use of this? lol

I remember I played Illusion of Gaia (actually Illusion of Time where I live) quite a bit in my childhood since a friend had it but I don't think I really finished it, at least I can't remember anything past the Sky Garden. For years, it kept coming back into my mind with somewhat mixed feelings and I was curious what it's really all about, so I finally took it on now. I suppose most of you played this game already, but if you haven't you may want to check it out. It may be slightly overhyped, though, imo, although it is easily my favorite in the Quintet trilogy. It never really starts to drag, you don't have to really grind. It's not super challenging and easy to just pick up and play. Some of the boss fights are tough, like the Vampire duo, while others are laughable easy.

Storywise, it's overall very creative and charming, although melancholic in kind of an odd way that's hard to describe but most of all it's reeeally bizarre. Unfortunately, the cutscenes are quite long sometimes (which is especially annoying in the beginning of the game where you just want to get started) and at some point, I started to partly skim over it sometimes. Maybe this is the reason I never really grasped some of the overarching motivation of the characters. Like what's really the deal with the statues and the flute and how come Will is capable of telekinesis, what's the lore around Freedan and - especially - Shadow. So, certain aspects seem quite rushed in the story while others are overwhelming, but maybe I just missed them?

What stood out in the story is there are some moments where the writers went a bit nuts, right? All this child slavery stuff, cannibalism, etc. is a bit harsh contrast with the otherwise somewhat naïve story, imo. Also, what's the fixation with burning people? You remember the guy setting his hair on fire - just like that, for no reason whatsoever? Then there's this scene where you >!blaze a villain to get rid of him and while he's still burning on the ground, you progress solving your puzzle!<? Right. Oh, and then there's this scene where >!Kara's pig throws itself into the fire!<? Oh man.

I did enjoy my time with it though, the gameplay is quite addictive, with clever game design elements and puzzles are unique and memorable, although not too challenging for the most part; the Sky Garden in particular stuck in my head for over 30 years now, I've got a vivid recollection that I played that one before. I also clearly remember this game introduced me to the Nazca lines. It is funny how you associate those things you experience in your childhood - when I was travelling Peru some years back, I frequently had this game in mind.

So, question to those who did play it and have a good recollection (or played it recently), what did you make of the story? From what I read and seen in videos I am not the only one who's not able to puzzle all the pieces to a reasonable picture. I saw this video of the SNES drunk, and I could not put it any better. I read that the story was actually co-written by award winning Japanese sci-fi novelist Mariko Ohara, so maybe the translation is to blame? Curious about your opinions, maybe I missed quite a bit in the story, in which case I may revisit the game at some point.

EDIT: did anyone play this re-translation patch here? How is it?

I am currently playing through the three GB entries of Castlevania, in order of release date, and - based on what I keep reading - I had only modest expectations for The Adventure (and Legends), but somewhat higher hopes for Belmont's Revenge, which seems to be held in high regard in general, even making it into the top-10 list in this poll here. I did find the latter better in terms of level design, boss design, and the music. The former also had good music, but was overall not exactly great, as it dragged a lot, literally, in particular due to the slow movement. Not a big deal for me, overall, it just feels like you play the entire game in slow-motion. But in general, I must say BR also has it's severe problems, so I'm surprised it is even regarded as one of the best GB games.

In particular, the last two boss fights, Soreiyu/Soleil as well as Dracula, seemed to have entirely went past the balancing process. Everything up until Soreiyu is pretty straightforward, also the bosses can mostly be spammed easily. The Bone Dragon is already a bit tougher, since you have to make sure you stay on the very right, which is sometimes tight, but it's still nothing compared to what's coming, this brick-wall the game does not prepare you for at all. This son-of-a-B with questionable hitbox keeps running into you, whipping like a maniac. Is there a strategy for this guy or is it just pitch-perfect evasion you have to do? Even worse is the Dracula battle, where the only chance to survive is to painfully find all the save-spots related to each platform by trial-and-error, and then try to memorize the exact locations, almost pixel-perfect.

This is insane and really not fun to play, imo, it's bad game design. After several ridiculous attempts I resorted to save-states for those two battles since I did not intend to go through this tedious experience.

Apart from that, the game is really solid. But since I find it terribly balanced and did not find The Adventure THAT bad, I'm wondering, for those of you who praise the game, what makes it so much better for you when compared to the first GB entry? Is it the stage selection? The two subweapons? The slightly faster pacing? The better music? The delicious wall-meat? The presence of a bit of a story? I did find the latter a nice touch, btw., it added some drama, which was not at all common back then.

Let's hear it, I'm genuinely curious!

I am currently playing through the three GB entries, in order of release date, and - based on what I keep reading - I had only modest expectations for The Adventure (and Legends), but somewhat higher hopes for Belmont's Revenge, which seems to be held in high regard in general, even making it into the top-10 list in this poll here. I did find the latter better in terms of level design, boss design, and the music. The former also had good music, but was overall not exactly great, as it dragged a lot, literally, in particular due to the slow movement. Not a big deal for me, overall, it just feels like you play the entire game in slow-motion. But in general, I must say BR also has it's severe problems, so I'm surprised it is even regarded as one of the best GB games.

In particular, the last two boss fights, Soreiyu/Soleil as well as Dracula, seemed to have entirely went past the balancing process. Everything up until Soreiyu is pretty straightforward, also the bosses can mostly be spammed easily. The Bone Dragon is already a bit tougher, since you have to make sure you stay on the very right, which is sometimes tight, but it's still nothing compared to what's coming, this brick-wall the game does not prepare you for at all. This son-of-a-B with questionable hitbox keeps running into you, whipping like a maniac. Is there a strategy for this guy or is it just pitch-perfect evasion you have to do? Even worse is the Dracula battle, where the only chance to survive is to painfully find all the save-spots related to each platform by trial-and-error, and then try to memorize the exact locations, almost pixel-perfect.

This is insane and really not fun to play, imo, it's bad game design. After several ridiculous attempts I resorted to save-states for those two battles since I did not intend to go through this tedious experience.

Apart from that, the game is really solid. But since I find it terribly balanced and did not find The Adventure THAT bad, I'm wondering, for those of you who praise the game, what makes it so much better for you when compared to the first GB entry? Is it the stage selection? The two subweapons? The slightly faster pacing? The better music? The delicious wall-meat? The presence of a bit of a story? I did find the latter a nice touch, btw., it added some drama, which was not at all common back then.

Let's hear it, I'm genuinely curious!

I never played the NES Contra games until recently, so this was my first Contra (actually Super Probotector for me) as a kid and I suppose I therefore got maximum nostalgia for this entry in the series, but I do think it is a big leap forward from the first two titles.

I owned the cartridge and boy did I love it. Together with a friend we played coop up to the point where we could beat it on hard mode. When I played it alone, I managed to get to a point where one out of three times I managed to beat it, although it was much more challenging, obviously, effectively with half the firepower and half the lives.

I played it again these days and found I still have much of the muscle memory and know all the strategies in and out, although, apparently I don't remember all the enemy positions and exact projectile trajectories, but I can still make it to stage 6 with moderate effort. This is, however, where I can no longer take the onslaught of enemies and start losing lots of lives.

Overall, the game absolutely holds up, imo, it's pure adrenaline rush and non-stop, batshit-crazy action to the max. Especially stage 6 with its boss rush is so damn climatic, the graphics are awesome; the music and sound design is stellar. For me, it's peak Contra and easily one of the top 10 SNES games. I noticed and don't get why this game is ranked relatively low in many lists, like on #24 on the IGN top 100 SNES games. Most of all, I read some complaints about it being short, idk, this seems a pointless complaint unless it was beat on hard mode. You've got plenty to do to master it, I really played this A LOT as a kid and I never got bored. I usually compare it to an 80ies Slayer album, it is short but raw and intense, distilled to its very essentials, no BS whatsoever. It's a tragedy how the franchise was watered down from there on, with a few exceptions like Contra 4.

What do you guys think about the game, where do you place it in the SNES library? Do/did you have any quarrels with it? Was it even too short/easy for you as some seem to criticize?

Just played through this game after finding it in a Youtube video about SNES games with great graphics and animations that got me curious. Originally a Japan-only title from 1995 named Gurume Sentai Barayarō, later re-released 2019 with English translations as Gourmet Warriors.

Apart from the wacky and surrealist cyberpunk aesthetic and eccentric art direction, it's a fairly regular side-scrolling beat-'em-up, however, you've got no health replenishment during stages and you entirely game over once you're out of health. After each stage you can combine food ingredients that you collected in order to compose a meal. Depending on the result and on your character's preference, you get some degree of health refill.

Another peculiar feature is the "posing" function that does not serve any purpose whatsoever: you've got a button dedicated to flexing your muscles or presenting your butt whenever you feel like it. Nuts.

Also, it doesn't really have a story, but even without, it's already pretty unhinged. You may want to check it out if you're into Baka-ge. It's also really short.

As a kid, I played Ghosts'n Goblins a bit on the NES, when I occasionally borrowed it from a friend, needless to say I didn't beat it but I was always kinda curious and loved the atmosphere, the setting, the enemies, the music, etc. Now I finally took it on, however, I went for the Arcade version first (Artoria Edition). Given the brutality of the game, I made it surprisingly far before I had to resort to save-states: The Satan boss in stage 5 just was too much for me. Not to speak of the Satan duo in Stage 6. I use save states to train and get better, but I don't see how anyone could beat this.

I went on to the NES version then, since I was curious how they directly compare and I was surprised to find that it is difficult for entirely different reasons. I felt like the ladder-blocking Goblins were so much easier to handle, they are a terrific pain in the neck in the Arcade version. You just. can. not. lure them. They move completely random, mess up your run and you cannot do a thing about it but watch your time run out. Contrarily, the enemy spawning on NES is sometimes unfair, e.g., when you spam a Goblin that starts into you, birds spawn behind you and you'd have to shoot both ways.

The biggest difference, however, comes down to the movement patterns of Red Arremers and Satans. My god, they are brutal on Arcade. On NES you can so easily learn their pattern and lure them. On Arcade, I cannot see how you can ever beat them. I watched some vids on Youtube and tried to imitate, but I still cannot see how you are supposed to anticipate what they do. They attack randomly, with a random trajectory and when they do you don't stand a chance, they're impossible to dodge, it's pure luck. Idk, maybe I don't get it.

Anybody out there who can explain to me how to handle them? Any more thoughts on Arcade vs. NES?

I didn't play the NES version of G'nG that much, so idk if I missed something, but yesterday I encountered something very strange at the stage 3 Dragon boss: I tried to kill it with the lance (screenshot unrelated, just for reference) and even with the tail removed, I must have hit it 30+ times on the head and it did not die. Then I went back a few screens to pick up the torch, which I skipped earlier, went back and hit it like 3 more times and it died. It's not like it's somehow less vulnerable to certain weapons, is it, that's not how I know G'nG, right?

Is this a glitch, did anyone here ever experience this? I knew already that the NES version is (seems) glitchy when it comes to dragons, as I saw it did at first not spawn here in this video (even though this is stage 4, but still).

Found this beautiful fella (body size about 3cm) on our May Bells, thought I'd share him here, check him out! Never seen one in my life, he's got a beautifully shiny iridescence shell!

I borrowed this game back in the 90s from a friend but not long enough to beat it. Now I did and I am glad I used the Aeon Genesis translation patch. Not only is the translation better, but having the faces appear during the dialogues makes the story much more compelling. These were removed in the US and European versions for whatever reason and all you get is the text, which is slightly more annoying throughout the game but is definitely less emotionally engaging. Also, the western versions are censored and there are scenes and dialogue missing.

Apart from that I have to say, if you don't know the game and are into action platformers, definitely give it a try. Boy, this game slaps. The sound design is awesome and the controls are just right - with the amount of drag you can literally feel every single ton of the mech. The gameplay is incredibly diverse, including zero-gravity regions, shmup-sections, exploration, you name it. The music is mostly great too, apart from some odd upbeat tracks it's tense and dramatic. The story is not super original but decent and keeps you engaged. It's getting pretty tough towards the ending, but it's absolutely doable, it's not at all Contra-hard. I had a blast finally playing and beating this, after a few decades, I can only recommend you check it out.

I have yet to play Front Mission: Gun Hazard and Metal Warriors. I know they are often seen as related and that they are not, but do you folks have any thoughts on how those compare to Cybernator in terms of overall quality?

I just finished Gradius III on Normal mode and BOY is this game freaking hard. I never played it back in the days since none in my circle had it but I was always curious. I noticed it ranks in several hardest-to-beat-SNES-games-of-all-time-lists, among other games like Contra III, Prince of Persia, Super Ghouls'n Ghosts, all of which I was able to beat. They were not particularly easy but manageable. Putting them on the same level as Gradius III seems ridiculous to me.

I realize Konami made this challenging on purpose, but this is just insane and I cannot see how this is really possible to beat. Even on easy this is no picnic. Thank god for the slow-motion mode aka. slow-down. I tried the SA-1 hack too, but at first I could not even beat it on easy without the slowdown and went back to the original.

What's your memory of this game? I'm curious, did anyone of you come even close to beating it in hard mode?

EDIT: I wasn't aware there is even an Arcade mode. Let alone that people really beat that too. On the other hand, of course they did.

I recently played and beat X3 for the first time. As a kid I played the first four of the classic series a lot when they came out and I also had X on the SNES which I also loved and found quite manageable in terms of controls.

Recently, I started playing the remaining games and now I've beat X3, however, using Snes9x and using safe states in the most brutal areas and fights, in particular during the Sigma fight. I must say I could not at all have managed on original hardware without this help and the main reason I guess is I cannot nail the dashing consistently, because I cannot handle the use of the opposing buttons Y and A simultaneously. Watching videos of experienced players on Youtube, I see constant dashing while the weapons are being charged. I cannot fathom how this can be done consistently on the SNES controller: you have to hold Y to charge; simultaneously jumping with B is easy, but making reasonable use of A for dashing at the same time is impossible for me.

I realize you can also double-tap the D-pad to dash, but this adds a considerable delay and is not practicable when you need to act fast, which is mostly the case. Also in the said Youtube videos it does not seem like it is done like this since this would be visible.

So I guess my question is: how do you folks handle this? Do you use to change the button layout? Or do you play with your index-/middle-/ring-fingers instead of the thumb?

I played and finished FF2 for the first time and fortunately decided to go for the GBA (i.e., Dawn of Souls) versions, completely oblivious of the Soul of Rebirth bonus quest when I made the choice. I must say, coming from FF1 (also DoS, which I think is also quite fun), I really enjoyed the organic leveling system and the freedom of choice that comes with it. Also, I liked the new Key Term system, it's a nice addition. Overall, the main game did not involve much grinding for me, although the numerous random encounters - leading to my party being overpowered most of the time - were a bit annoying at some times, I was happy to have a fast-forward option there, as I was when playing FF1. Apart from that I think it's a fun playthrough!

Anyways, I have a recommendation for everybody planning to play the earlier games of the series: When playing FF2, choose the DoS version and go ahead to play SoR, it makes the story so much better and it's at least a bit more challenging then the main game. There is a considerable degree of grinding involved (took about 3-4 hours for me) and I was about to quit, but in the end I pushed through and I was so glad that I did - it's not what I expected it to be, it adds such a nice touch to the ending.

Summarizing, great game - the remake anyway! And definitely go for DoS and play SoR! It's real odd to me that it was not added to the pixel remasters.

This is my third FF game I'm starting right now. I played through 6 and 1 so far, but I never understood this here, and it seems to be the same for each game:

When I shop for items, I see either arrows pointing up or down or an equality sign next to my party members, which are supposed to indicate if the respective item is an upgrade, a downgrade, or neither, afaik. Now take this example, the Buckler seems to be an upgrade for both Maria and Guy, however, when I buy one and try to equip it, the equipment screen tells me that it's actually NOT an upgrade, since defense remains unchanged at 4. I had several instances in the past where a purchased item turned out to be even a downgrade. Since the arrows are the only information I get beforehand, there is apparently no way of telling if I should buy an item or not, which is really annoying.

What am I not getting here? What's the actual meaning of those signs?

Edit: not sure why you're getting downvoted for asking reasonable questions in this community, but feel free to go for it - everybody needs a hobby.

Edit 2: got it. Shields affect *only* evade and have no effect on defense *at all*. That was the essential information I was missing here.

Having played The Battle of Olympus as a kid, I just beat it for the first time. I honestly don't remember how far I got as a kid, but I don't recall the ending, so I suppose I didn't beat it.

I'm somewhat in a love-hate relationship with it, but still I wanted to give it an appreciation post here for those who didn't play through it yet; maybe retry and give it a fair chance.

It's commonly known that it's real similar to Zelda II, since it uses the same engine, which is something you can really feel in the controls. While I did master Zelda II as a kid, I didn't play this one so much and to me the controls feel not as well balanced. What's for sure is that most enemy patterns are really awful. In particular the Bats, the Satyrs, the Jumpers, and the Monkeys are so obnoxious, omg. In particular the bats drove me crazy, with their constant knocking you into pits. In Zelda II you feel like you're in control, when you die you know it's your fault, but here? Different story. Apparently, even the developer is quoted regretting to have made the game too hard. Be prepared to yell at the screen at some point.

That said, I somewhat did get the hang of it towards the end, but most of the time it's just punishing and just not fun unless you power up with ambrosia as early as possible, most which are hard to find. As a result, I did start to use some guidance (and safe states) at some point because I'm just not masochistic enough these days. You just die to frequently and lose half of your olives (the game's currency), and too much of the game relies on grinding for them. And I don't know what the point of the shield even is here, it's so inconsistent and hard to use that it's practically useless. Plus, some of the secrets are notoriously difficult to find-comparing this again to Zelda II, I think Battle of Olympus is much more cryptic, but maybe that's just me. It's certainly not a fair comparison these days as I know Zelda II inside out.

Anyways, overall I think if you don't know the game and are into Zelda II, Faxanadu, Castlevania II, etc. then you should give it a try. It's rough around the edges so you have to hang in there as it grows on you I guess. The graphics and in particular the music are excellent for the era. I did enjoy the theme, for me Greek mythology is kind of underrepresented especially among 8-bit games. There are a few obvious quirks though, like the misnaming of Orpheus' lover, the "Satyrs" clearly being Fauns, Cerberus only having two heads, olives being red shiny balls, and I don't know what business monkeys and gargoyles have in Greece. Those are somehow nit-picks, maybe, but I still think the developers could have done some more homework there. What raised my eyebrows most of all was J.S. Bach playing in the Gods' temples, this is just wrong and the most misplaced music I can recall in a game, ever.

Any comments, what are you folks' thoughts when you contrast it to Zelda II? Anyone who played both for the first time more recently? That would probably give a much more objective comparison.