I don't think the game is a piece of shit, I just don't think it's that great. Maybe a 7/10. There are certainly worse games that are truly pieces of shit on the system.
Printable View
I don't think the game is a piece of shit, I just don't think it's that great. Maybe a 7/10. There are certainly worse games that are truly pieces of shit on the system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GohanX
I'd give it a 6/10 however.... its great music, graphics, and presentation comprise a huge chunk of that.
In the end, while definitely fun to play in short stints, its still a mediocre tie-in game.
Well, my feelings about the game haven't changed since StarMist's thread about it last month, so I'll just quote my post from that thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by profholt82
Can anyone who has actually beaten it give me a difficulty comparison against games such as:
-Castlevania
-Jackal
-Super Mario Bros
-Chip N Dale Rescue Rangers
-TMNT Arcade
i.e.- Perhaps, if you're able, put them in order of difficulty including TMNT (1). I'd be much obliged.
While the Arcade port was solid for its time, it still suffers from 2 flaws: Limited continues & cheap A.I.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saturn Fan
Only 3 continues?Okay, why? I understand Contra & Super C had the same feature but those were more balanced & this was 1990! The NES was in its 3rd generation & there were a plenty of other NES titles that had unlimited continues; SF2010,Frankenstien,Mega Man 3,Mario 3.
As I mentioned, the A.I. is really cheap. You can easily take damage.
Also the marketing. Why didn't Konami release the port the same time as the Arcade?
By '90, Genesis was out. Giving Konami the option of more powerful hardware to work with. An NES exclusive by then was pointless. Both platforms deserved it.
I will give TMNT 2 credit though. Its at least tolerable.
Castlevania can be unforgiving at times but its still fun as hell & is considered an NES classic. The sequel is not too shabby.Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSciFi
Jackal is like a toned down version of "Berzerk" for Atari. Its fun but gets real intense real fast.
Super Mario Bros. is a mid 80s' post crash game. Meaning its all about challenge & skill. It continues to age gracefully. (I happen to be in the minority,I hate SMB. 2 & enjoy Lost Levels)
Chip 'N Dales' is a joy to play. I own the game. It requires trial n' error.
As for the Arcade game & port. The Arcade game is hard but fun while the port is meh, especially after you've beaten it.
Guys, these games offer a specific set of rules to be played. Few lives, few continues, difficult gameplay?
Adapt and enjoy, or avoid and refrain from bashing.
All of them in Quick's post are fine, challenging games.
Being challenging isn't reason enough for a game to suck.
In what ways exactly is the AI cheap? It has pretty defined patterns and is challenging enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSega
And many NES games were known for their limited continues after all,
that was the one factor that forced you to actually play the game over and over until you got good enough to get through it.
Thus giving you more playtime for your buck.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSega
TMNT arcade had great graphics, great music, great gameplay, arcade content brought over faithfully(but lower quality on the hardware), extra stages, etc. Whats not to love? A high water mark considering the aging, underpowered hardware.
And there are codes for extra continues as well as stage select.
Shame Genesis didn't get a port, would have been awesome. But it was still relatively new on the scene and didn't have enough exposure by that time.
Well when you pay for $40 for an arcade port, and one you probable dumped double that into ,it damn well better have unlimited continues.
Well having unlimited continues probably wouldn't make it very enjoyable in the least considering it's fairly easy.
So having limited continues actually helps making it challenging.
But unlimited continues is OK in the arcade? I can't agree with you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robotwo
Sometimes its easy to lose sight of the reality that limited continues back then contributed a LOT to replay value, as well as overall gamer skill. With unlimited continues, that means any fool could beat it and it would seem short.
However, by having a small amount it keeps players coming back as well as forces them to improve if they ever want to beat the game. Making for a more meaningful gaming experience.
It made sense in the arcades, because dying had a consequence then (having to pay cash for another try/ continue)Quote:
Originally Posted by Iron Lizard
I still can't agree. If a player doesn't want unlimited continues then that player need not continue. Why force it down the throat of everyone?