Top 100 Sega Genesis Games

[Thenewguy]

Jewel Master doesn't regularly turn up on lists of worst games so I don't know where you got that idea from, its virtually always considered at least solid, the review on Sega-16 gave it 8/10.

People around here do not go on about Gunstar Heroes/Alien Soldier/Hard Corps/Batman and Robin simply due to them being "technically flashy" they go on about them because they are exciting and exhilarating games.

On the other side though I don't denigrate Starmist's list either, we all already know he has weird taste, he's clearly looking for very different things in his games than most people so its unsurprising that he would make such an odd list.

[StarMist]

You sir have a terrible taste in gaming.

Thank you. I'm always delighted to hear that from anyone who loves Castle of Illusion.

Gunstar Heroes might not be perfect, but it sure is Top 100 material.

If it's great enough for you to get upset about it's great enough for you to make some actual argument in favour of.
-- @ goldenband re R&Gs = what makes Gunstar Heroes a shallow R&G is, as with CHC, a dearth of pitfalls (meaningful platforming), pointless stages that serve as little more than filler betwix boss fights (though I do like the minecart lv; then again it has the best tune), and the ability to toast the game exclusively using the homing weapon.

+ The point of a Top 100 is to to come up with a Top 100, not with "I can think of only 60 half decent games, everything else you like is crap".

This is sheerly your pugnacious interpretation. I like my top 60, they're very enjoyable games; certainly not "half decent". 61-70 aren't bad either. Your problem is evidently that your favourite games didn't make my list, although it really seems you have a problem with anybody's having a different opinion whatsoever. A reasonable interpretation why I left that filler off the list would be, obviously, that there aren't another 30 which distinguish themselves from the other good games (6 or 7/10 stuff), hence there'd be little purpose or true decision in putting in another 30 games that are more or less qualitatively interchangeable with 20 or 50 others. And lo, I'd already stated this in my original post. Nowhere did I imply everything else on the system is crap.

[retrospiel]

Well, then how do you come to the conclusion that here are only 60 decent games for it ?

[goldenband]

Well, the difference is that you at least admit you'll most likely stumble upon more games. Other users who posted in this thread claim "there are only 60 good games, anything else is filler".

He didn't actually say that, though -- just that when he got past the 60-70 mark (or even earlier), the entries started to feel like an interchangeable listing of OK-to-pretty-good games.

And Jewel Master surprised me as well. Still gotta play Galaxy Force II (for more than a couple of minutes).

It's got a lot of problems, but if you can forgive its technical flaws, it's pretty addictive once you get on its wavelength.

Jewel Master doesn't regularly turn up on lists of worst games so I don't know where you got that idea from, its virtually always considered at least solid, the review on Sega-16 gave it 8/10.

Joe Redifer/Game Sack put it on a worst-games-on-the-Genesis list a few months back.

People around here do not go on about Gunstar Heroes/Alien Soldier/Hard Corps/Batman and Robin simply due to them being "technically flashy" they go on about them because they are exciting and exhilarating games.

Well, they do it for both reasons, presumably, but I think it'd be hard to claim that the technical flash doesn't influence at least some opinions. There are plenty of people who dismiss games for being ugly, for instance, so it's not at all a stretch to say that people are impressed by polish.

And there's always confirmation bias: "Wow, this looks and sounds so great, it must be fun, right?" -- which is one of the charges perennially lobbed at the SNES, i.e. that its flashy aspects hornswoggle fanboys into overlooking subpar gameplay. But human nature is the same no matter what 16-bit system you play.

On the other side though I don't denigrate Starmist's list either, we all already know he has weird taste, he's clearly looking for very different things in his games than most people so its unsurprising that he would make such an odd list.

I like some games that StarMist doesn't like (or even hates), but I usually find that games he likes are a safe bet for at least moderate enjoyment. Then again, I have "weird" taste too; I'm not much of a fan of the Sonic series at all, whereas I'm fond of a certain game with a reputation for potions and decapitations...

[Barone]

Maybe, just maybe, we should remember that StarMist just listed his own top 100 games; just like the OP said that it should be...
He didn't bash other people's opinions or lists; he actually got his list panned for not being exactly what anyone would expect for a top 100 list.

Olls attitude towards StaMist's post is much more questionable than the actual list IMO.
I thought we were supposed to list our own top 100 games and StarMist did that, so what's wrong?


This forum used to be cool when different opinions were allowed. Oh, well...

[StarMist]

People around here do not go on about Gunstar Heroes/Alien Soldier/Hard Corps/Batman and Robin simply due to them being "technically flashy" they go on about them because they are exciting and exhilarating games.

Iirc you've described yourself as OCD once at least. Not to read that literally or anything but you might con those games' threads and tabulate how many initial (nonresponsive) posts exclaim about their graphics/special effects. Granted graphics and special effects ought to be distinguished but it shouldn't be counted upon the average (brief, frothy) post will have made that distinction. Just look for anything along the lines of "The first time I played it I couldn't believe that was my Mega Drive etc". Personally I don't see it falling far shy of 50%. What also has to be factored in is the difficulty write-off: whenever somebody nods along CHC/AS/AB&R/DH is a great game but too hard for him I weigh suspicion whether he's just doing that to excuse himself politely from bashing it. They're not all that hard and many members here have beaten many harder games; Headdy eg I'd only equate to Adventure Island's area 5, it's certainly not so tough as AI's area 6 or beyond (I gave up last play at 7 so I don't recall how many there are), and it's nowhere near any Ninja Gaiden, or bringing it back to MD titles, The Immortal or Gaiares.
Not, btw, that I think any of those titles awful except AB&R, which really does border on being a tech demo: the fx were developed first, then the game was fitted around them (from the Clockwork Tortoise review on site).

Well, then how do you come to the conclusion that here are only 60 decent games for it ?

'Decent' was never part of the discussion; 'top' means 'best', not 'decent'. Making a list of 100 decent games were nonsense.

[goldenband]

Headdy eg I'd only equate to Adventure Island's area 5, it's certainly not so tough as AI's area 6 or beyond (I gave up last play at 7 so I don't recall how many there are)

Eight, and the last one is brutal. Beating that in 1996 or so was one of the hardest things I've ever done in a video game; the only saving grace was the continue code, which I consider fair play to use since it's specifically and nudge-nudgingly provided by the game.

I'd love to know how many other Sega-16 members are unimpressed by Castle of Illusion. I didn't enjoy that game much at all, whereas World of Illusion was a blast (though very easy).

[StarMist]

`96? Shit. I was going to ask you how to pass that springboard over a pit that launches one into an eggplant egg in the ice stage of area 7. I couldn't get the full spring off it needed to leap the egg, nor reach it with health to survive the eggplant. I was pretty pleased with myself for beating a whole stage in 5 with the skateboard. Also, any notion how to access the bonus rounds where Billy is lifted into another set of screens, like some very rough approximation of the bonus cloud areas in SMB1? I just read it takes a key (and that the "eggplant" is not the vampire bat I'd supposed) but I thought there was some trick to making desirable eggs appear involving the manipulation of cobras--or that the cobras are hints to where an egg can be conjured by trotting backwards.
Anyway I don't think I'm beating this one, but I know I'm not beating NG3.

[goldenband]

Oh, man, those memories are very vague, but I did play Adventure Island again for an hour or two within the last year, on real hardware even (and made it about halfway IIRC before getting weary). I seem to recall that the color of the frogs is an alert of some kind, but I don't remember to what -- maybe a particular bonus item, or maybe a fast-moving enemy -- yes, I think that's right, something you can shoot multiple times for points.

The bonus round triggers are weirdly fresh in my mind, I think from reviewing a walkthrough when I played earlier this year, but I can't remember any specifics. I suspect my 1996 playthrough was pretty much bonus-round free after the first level.

[Nobi]

Joe Redifer/Game Sack put it on a worst-games-on-the-Genesis list a few months back.

Game Sack has hated on a few games that were not that bad. I've never played Jewel Master, but at the end of the day it all comes down to what you get off on, not what Game Sack gets off on.

[Thenewguy]

Joe Redifer/Game Sack put it on a worst-games-on-the-Genesis list a few months back.

Are you sure he wasn't being sarcastic? it would surprise me if he actually said that, as the guy always seemed to have a decent knowledge of Genesis games, I mean, it doesn't take much effort to think of 10-20 games which are significantly worse than Jewel Master (there are multiple Genesis games which are nigh on unplayable).

Either way the review score here is 8/10, and the average vote is 8/10 (3 voters), and I don't think I've ever really seen anyone on the forums hating on the game to any extent.

Well, they do it for both reasons, presumably, but I think it'd be hard to claim that the technical flash doesn't influence at least some opinions.

But where does "technical flash" end, and atmosphere, set-pieces, and exciting visuals begin anyway?

You can stand around saying a huge horseback rider chasing after you is technical flash, but at the end of the day its also an exciting spectacle in itself, its not just some shallow visual effect and nothing else, because it helps to get you wrapped up in whats going on and get your blood pumping.

Not to read that literally or anything but you might con those games' threads and tabulate how many initial (nonresponsive) posts exclaim about their graphics/special effects. Granted graphics and special effects ought to be distinguished but it shouldn't be counted upon the average (brief, frothy) post will have made that distinction. Just look for anything along the lines of "The first time I played it I couldn't believe that was my Mega Drive etc".

That wouldn't prove anything though, saying the graphics are awesome doesn't automatically mean the game doesn't have any other excellent qualities, and the average gamer on here never lays out a concise recommendation anyway, 90% of the comments for any game essentially end up being something along the lines of "THIS IS AWESOME" or "I LOVE THIS GAME", most aren't going to give you any more than that.

Personally I like run-n-gun games, I like them because I enjoy bullet dodging and precision shooting, I like the opportunity for flair, navigating an especially deadly stream of bullets with a combination of skill, and maybe a little luck, I like their fast pacing, and I like the fast turnover of enemies.

I like Alien Soldier because it has excellent controls, allowing you to stay stationary in mid air with a double press, skid through bullets without taking damage, stand on the ceiling, walk one direction whilst firing another, change to a stationary stance etc. It requires skill, its rewarding to learn, the pacing is fast, its exhilarating, the graphics and music are excellent, and lastly the set-pieces are memorable and exciting.

What also has to be factored in is the difficulty write-off: whenever somebody nods along CHC/AS/AB&R/DH is a great game but too hard for him I weigh suspicion whether he's just doing that to excuse himself politely from bashing it.

I think a more likely explanation for people saying that is that either A. they suck at videogames, or B. they downloaded a ROM and only spent <20 minutes playing it. I said Hard Corps was ridiculously hard once, but when I bought it, and actually sat down playing it for a few hours on my Mega Drive (instead of sporadically firing up an emulator for a game or two at a time every now and then) I started making very fast progress in no time.

Fence-sitters are more likely to say something like "I can see its great, but its not my type of thing" IMO

--------------------------------------

This really makes me wonder what your top 100 Amiga games would look like, whether you would go with completely different shmups than me and Kamahl for instance, maybe the tougher, more memory intensive games, or would you out and out hate everything

[Olls]

Maybe, just maybe, we should remember that StarMist just listed his own top 100 games;

Except that he didn't list 100 games. He could've at least put those other games at the bottom of the list.

This forum used to be cool when different opinions were allowed. Oh, well...

Likewise, this forum used to be cool when we could discuss about other people's opinions (I believe that's what forums are for). Oh, wait. We never can, because somebody always starts crying.

[goldenband]

Are you sure he wasn't being sarcastic? it would surprise me if he actually said that, as the guy always seemed to have a decent knowledge of Genesis games, I mean, it doesn't take much effort to think of 10-20 games which are significantly worse than Jewel Master (there are multiple Genesis games which are nigh on unplayable).

Here's the video, and the thread:

Creative Genesis: Game Sack Ep. #51

As I said in the linked thread, I enjoyed that game as much as (or more than) any action-platformer I've played on the Genesis, so to see it on a "games to avoid" list was shocking. If I were to deeply play every game in the Genesis library, I'd expect it to end up in my top 50, maybe my top 20.

But I won't claim there's a consensus against the game; it's more just the idea that one man's meat is another's poison, and that should be respected even if someone blasts a revered classic...

...unless they haven't made a real effort to engage the game on its own terms: then their opinion is probably meaningless, at least when it goes any further than "it's not my type of thing". I'm not a FPS fan and I reserve the right to say "not my thing" about any given game in the genre, but I'm not foolish enough to opine on whether it's a good game or not. For others, that genre is strategy or RPGs or whatever.

(Even style can be relevant here; within a genre I like, certain approaches just aren't for me, but seem to work for others. But, "am I really evaluating this game on its own terms, or am I just bringing my own agenda of what I think a game should be?" It's seldom a good idea to fault a game for not being what it was never trying to be in the first place -- though at the same time you can decide that what it was trying to be was a stupid idea to begin with.)

But where does "technical flash" end, and atmosphere, set-pieces, and exciting visuals begin anyway?

There's no clear dividing line between gameplay and presentation, or between flash and fun; the boundary is permeable and fuzzy. It doesn't mean there isn't a difference between the two, though! Quintessential example: Dragon's Lair.

[Barone]

Except that he didn't list 100 games. He could've at least put those other games at the bottom of the list.

Likewise, this forum used to be cool when we could discuss about other people's opinions (I believe that's what forums are for). Oh, wait. We never can, because somebody always starts crying.

To act like a forum bully is a lot different than just discuss about other people's opinions. But you seem to not know the difference, of course.

[Olls]

To act like a forum bully is a lot different than just discuss about other people's opinions. But you seem to not know the difference, of course.

You (StarMist, in this case) expect to post a controversial list like that and not draw (negative) attention?
Lol. If you can't take criticism, don't post. Luckily, he takes my "bullying" pretty well. Unlike you, and it was never directed to you, but you seem to think you're the forum police or something.