For those that grew up in the 8/16 bit era.

Limahl said:
"Fun" is subjective and cannot be proven one way or the other.

So.... keep trolling or?
Click to expand...

Really? If older games were really that much better, why play newer games? why not just buy up a whole bunch of older games and just play those? And you could say anything is subjective, but in general most people will find certain things fun, and certain things not, so how about instead of trolling with your generic answer you actually discuss the topic.

Most older games were actually quite simplistic, there are some that had a good amount of depth, but not many. As a kid, did you want to play the complex games or did you play the one that gave instant gratification? I can almost guarantee it was the second one, which is why saying older games is better is complete bull shit. As we get older, we change, but the emotions associated with memories don't, so yes, older games were fun, but comparing them to newer games is stupid.
 
darkstarcow said:
Really? If older games were really that much better, why play newer games? why not just buy up a whole bunch of older games and just play those? And you could say anything is subjective, but in general most people will find certain things fun, and certain things not, so how about instead of trolling with your generic answer you actually discuss the topic.

Most older games were actually quite simplistic, there are some that had a good amount of depth, but not many. As a kid, did you want to play the complex games or did you play the one that gave instant gratification? I can almost guarantee it was the second one, which is why saying older games is better is complete bull shit. As we get older, we change, but the emotions associated with memories don't, so yes, older games were fun, but comparing them to newer games is stupid.
Click to expand...

So, instant gratification > complex games, but complex games with depth > older games because they give instant gratification?

I agree, newer games are technologically better. Heck, if I could play a higher quality Super Mario World, I would. I have all he New Super Mario Bros. games, and enjoy them, albeit I find that Nintendo's music quality has been dropping since the N64. They're just not memorable.

I have all the consoles of the past several generations and a decent PC, and quite honestly, I play my (3)DS & PSP more than any of the big consoles or even my PC. They have the types of games that I liked, and those genres happened to be part of the NES/SNES era games, but were dropped when the flavor of the day became FPSs.
 
Nytegard said:
So, instant gratification > complex games, but complex games with depth > older games because they give instant gratification?

I agree, newer games are technologically better. Heck, if I could play a higher quality Super Mario World, I would. I have all he New Super Mario Bros. games, and enjoy them, albeit I find that Nintendo's music quality has been dropping since the N64. They're just not memorable.

I have all the consoles of the past several generations and a decent PC, and quite honestly, I play my (3)DS & PSP more than any of the big consoles or even my PC. They have the types of games that I liked, and those genres happened to be part of the NES/SNES era games, but were dropped when the flavor of the day became FPSs.
Click to expand...

No, I was trying to say that games which could be jumped into and out of tend to be fairly important when younger. I am not saying that a set in stone "rule" either, but I haven't found someone yet that didn't have their interests/wants change.

I look back at the old days of gaming and remember having a blast, I also have had just as much fun in recent years.
 
darkstarcow said:
No, I was trying to say that games which could be jumped into and out of tend to be fairly important when younger. I am not saying that a set in stone "rule" either, but I haven't found someone yet that didn't have their interests/wants change.

I look back at the old days of gaming and remember having a blast, I also have had just as much fun in recent years.
Click to expand...

The point that has been brought up above though is that maybe some other people haven't been having much fun in recent years. For the most part, fun is subjective and not quantifiable.

I enjoy King's Quest and Zork. I think Final Fantasy 7 and Zelda Ocarina of Time are heavily overrated games. Quite honestly, I think Zelda OoT is a horrible game, and this isn't a "it's aged" statement. I thought the same thing when it came out.

The point is, disagree with me all you want, but we have different tastes. Neither of us is more correct on what is fun.

And I do agree, tastes change. People tend to want something new, which is why companies need to constantly innovate or become irrelevant. But that doesn't necessarily mean I go from liking Super Mario Bros. to Call of Duty Ghosts. I might still like the same game play but just want a more mature story.
 
Eh, not really. 2D gaming was fun back in the day and some good 2D games still come out these days, but I'm not overly nostalgic about it despite my first gaming experience being late 80's and early 90's PC and NES games.

Each generation of games has had it's ups and downs. There were some fun games in the 8/16 bit era, but there were also many good games in the N64/Playstation days, and then many good games in the PS2/Xbox days, there were even good games in the 360/PS3 days despite the fact I've only PC gamed this past generation and didn't even buy a console, and I'm sure there'll be more good games from here through the next generation too.
 
I still play old Arcade/NES/Gens games maybe once a week. They're still tons of fun.

What I hate is the artificial "depth" that is being thrown in games for no good reason. Other than making publishers even more money, that is. Why keep things clean and simple when you can make morons pay just so they can avoid the pointless grinding (a.k.a. "depth" or "complexity").

Fun is fun, whether you're a kid or not.

Huge number of mobile/indie games are just terrible rehashes of old games we used to love as kids.
 
I dont think that market will ever become niche, you can make solid stuff with classic art assests
 
The biggest problem with modern games is the amount of money. It takes way too much money and way too many people to create a game now. So any AAA game with whiz bang visuals and sound, has to sell as many copies as possible to be viable. So the more visually impressive a game is, the shittier and worse it has to be to make sure you can sell to the broadest possible audience.

This isn't just a problem with the gaming industry either, Hollywood has this sort of problem as well. Any sort of thing with whizbang graphics and visual effects is usually pop culture trash for the masses, and it will have to be to make those special effects profitable.
 
Eh, I grew up in the 80's, and I don't miss the games of that era at all. For me, the first really great game I ever played was Half-Life 1. From that point all I wanted was to experience more realism and better emersion in a gaming experience. And I still think we’ve got a long way to go, so gaming is just going to get better from here. These days there are a lot of games from just a few years ago that I can’t stand playing because they look so bad there is no emersion factor for me.

Breaking out the retro-style games every now and then is fun, but I could care less about the old 8-bit days for the most part.
 
topslop1 said:
I'm still stuck on Ultima Online. I'm waiting for a new shard to come out before I hit that up again. No games are really truly as fun as the pvp in that game. Counter-strike comes in at a close 2nd place and I"m talking about the days when it was beta that I used to play it.
Click to expand...

I'm still waiting on someone to make another game like pre-trammel UO.
 
You can't compare current games to old, that's like comparing 60's/70s football players to now. Current players/games are bigger/faster/stronger. You have to judge the games from the 8/16 bit era in THAT era, not now, and what they contributed to gaming as a whole. Of course Super Mario 1 looks like crap compared to Halo 4, as does a Pentium 66 compared to my computer now. That doesn't mean the original Pentiums weren't more innovative at the time.
 
When I was a kid, my dad - who worked for the phone company - brought home this box. It was about the size of a small toaster standing on end. It was connected to a modem; the kind you had to put the handset on to use. It had a screen about 2/3 the of my Samsung Galaxy S4 that was strictly green text. My dad connected the modem and we connected to some site and found a game. It said,

"You are standing at the end of a road before a small brick building. Around you is a forest. A small stream flows out of the building and down a gully."

It was about the coolest thing ever.
 
dgz said:
I still play old Arcade/NES/Gens games maybe once a week. They're still tons of fun.

What I hate is the artificial "depth" that is being thrown in games for no good reason. Other than making publishers even more money, that is. Why keep things clean and simple when you can make morons pay just so they can avoid the pointless grinding (a.k.a. "depth" or "complexity").

Fun is fun, whether you're a kid or not.

Huge number of mobile/indie games are just terrible rehashes of old games we used to love as kids.
Click to expand...

same here still rocking Ti 994/a games like Parsec, Microsurgeon, Munch Man, TI Invaders, Tunnels of DOOM, etc
 
The game I had the most fun with was Stunts and all of the Summer Games, Winter Games stuff like that.

I'd have 3 or 4 people come over and we'd play those on a c64. I used the c64 so much I went through about 10 power supplies lol
 
I still fire up old games now and then. Most recently, I've gone through Return to Castle Wolfenstein which might not exactly qualify but was still fun to go through.

I might fire up the NES Rygar tonight as well. That should be fun.

That said, coming back to modern times, dammit they need to make a sequel to Bastion. That was such a fun game.
 
RTCW is the best single-player FPS ever made but it should not be mentioned in this thread.

Rygar is an amazing game. Can't beat it without cheats, though. God, MAME is so good with features such as autofire, jumpers and cheats :D
 
dgz said:
RTCW is the best single-player FPS ever made but it should not be mentioned in this thread.

Rygar is an amazing game. Can't beat it without cheats, though. God, MAME is so good with features such as autofire, jumpers and cheats :D
Click to expand...

Yeah I figured RTCW was a bit newer than what this thread is going for. Just played it through again so it was fresh in my head.

Can't beat Rygar without cheats? You mentioned MAME so we might be talking different versions. The arcade version on MAME is vastly different than the NES version that Techmo made. The NES version was an open world game with some RPG style elements like leveling for more health as well as getting additional gear later in the game. I've never bothered to make it all the way through the Rygar arcade game though I've beaten the NES game several times. Such a fun game.
 
Death to all Sharkmen.

The_Dark_Queen_of_Krynn_screens_4.gif


Also, thanks to this game my brain decided a 'Footman's Dragonlance' was a type of flail...
 
Krenum said:
These types of games seem fake to me. They are designed to look pixelated. The games designed back in the day looked that way because there was no other alternative due to hardware limitations. I guess its the difference in growing up with these types of games like I did, or having them as a novelty today.
Click to expand...

feel ya on that, getting tired of that trend. But then again I have thousands of others to choose from so it's easy to ignore that stuff if I don't like it.
 
niomosy said:
Yeah I figured RTCW was a bit newer than what this thread is going for. Just played it through again so it was fresh in my head.

Can't beat Rygar without cheats? You mentioned MAME so we might be talking different versions. The arcade version on MAME is vastly different than the NES version that Techmo made. The NES version was an open world game with some RPG style elements like leveling for more health as well as getting additional gear later in the game. I've never bothered to make it all the way through the Rygar arcade game though I've beaten the NES game several times. Such a fun game.
Click to expand...

Remeber Jurassic Park for the SNES? that was an awesome game...

Jurassic_Park_SNES_01.png


I remember I got trapped inside the building when I slipped between two wall textures...
 
Lot of rose tinted glasses around here. My first system was an Atari 2600 when I was 5 years old. I lived through all of it, and most of those games were god awful in comparison to what we have today. Sorry, I have good childhood memories of a lot of those games too, but its like comparing a WWI bi-plane to an F-22.
 
niomosy said:
Can't beat Rygar without cheats? You mentioned MAME so we might be talking different versions. The arcade version on MAME is vastly different than the NES version that Techmo made. The NES version was an open world game with some RPG style elements like leveling for more health as well as getting additional gear later in the game. I've never bothered to make it all the way through the Rygar arcade game though I've beaten the NES game several times. Such a fun game.
Click to expand...

No, man. Completely different game. This NES version looks sufficiently different enough to count as a different game and enjoyed that way. However, Arcade Rygar is fast and hard. Most console version of arcades are simply terrible imo. Especially SEGA classics such as Golden Axe, Alien Storm, Altered Beast.
 
B2BigAl said:
Lot of rose tinted glasses around here. My first system was an Atari 2600 when I was 5 years old. I lived through all of it, and most of those games were god awful in comparison to what we have today. Sorry, I have good childhood memories of a lot of those games too, but its like comparing a WWI bi-plane to an F-22.
Click to expand...

Nobody should be directly comparing games of then to now. Read my post in this thread. It's not a relevant comparison.
 
dgz said:
No, man. Completely different game. This NES version looks sufficiently different enough to count as a different game and enjoyed that way. However, Arcade Rygar is fast and hard. Most console version of arcades are simply terrible imo. Especially SEGA classics such as Golden Axe, Alien Storm, Altered Beast.
Click to expand...

Yup, a lot of NES games were nothing like their arcade counterparts. I recall the Stryder game for the NES. Absolutely fun, non-linear game but mostly unlike the arcade game. Ditto TMNT and, of course, Rygar. Honestly, while those games had very little other than the same character and weapon in common, they were a blast.

Back to Rygar, you're right. The arcade is definitely different from the NES game and a lot of fun. I've really never tried the console versions of the arcade game as it was just easier to fire up Mame and play Rygar as intended. Never beat it, though. So many levels, I just wasn't as into completing it and gave up.
 
chalmer9 said:
You can't compare current games to old, that's like comparing 60's/70s football players to now. Current players/games are bigger/faster/stronger. You have to judge the games from the 8/16 bit era in THAT era, not now, and what they contributed to gaming as a whole. Of course Super Mario 1 looks like crap compared to Halo 4, as does a Pentium 66 compared to my computer now. That doesn't mean the original Pentiums weren't more innovative at the time.
Click to expand...

niomosy said:
Yup, a lot of NES games were nothing like their arcade counterparts.
Click to expand...

Now that you bring up arcades...

I know a lot of people who find arcade games to be boring, after they play a game on MAME or something similar. The thing about arcades (and maybe this applies to the Atari/NES generation too) is that they never were meant to be played for hours nor days at a time. Playing any game for too long brings down it's entertainment value. The difference I think is that one generation of games could be beaten in under an hour, thus it's overall lifespan is much shorter. But if you don't play games constantly, even worse gameplay can become fun. An issue here with current games I think is similar to sugar. Old games were like that candy treat you got once in awhile. Now all of the sudden many foods contains tremendous amounts of sugar, and we see what that's doing to our society.
 
I grew up in it, but I think the games are much better now overall. The old games had their time, now going back to play them is meh.
 
Some of those old games came with huge manuals.... and I mean books. F-15 Eagle anyone? Keyboard overlays, etc. Some of those games used near enough every key on the keyboard.

It's just evolution of gaming. Bring on the holodeck and seven of nine (in her prime) lol.
 
darkstarcow said:
Really? Name 5 games that are 8/16bit that put games developed in the last 10 years to shame.

Why games are better now:

depth: older games were very simple due to programming constraints.

size: older games were generally fairly small, repetitive/simplistic game play was often used to make them feel longer.

difficulty: older games were made harder not by making you think, but by throwing shit at you that you would be lucky to survive, battle toads and ninja turtles ring a bell?

Looks: Newer games just plain look better.

So I am going to flat out say that anyone who thinks that gaming was better 20-30 years ago are remembering things differently then they really were.
Click to expand...

Just saw this (haven't been keeping up with the thread).

1. Sonic the Hedgehog (the first three on Genesis). These games are classic examples of good platforming. Easy to pick up, difficult to master. The last game (Sonic 3) could be paired with Sonic and Knuckles to get the complete Sonic 3 experience.

2. Vampire Savior (Sega Saturn, Playstation, Capcom Arcade) - not 16-bit by home standards, but since it made its debut on CPS2 (Capcom's 16-bit arcade system), I'm going to include it. No fighter can compare. Has dazzling art, fast gameplay, awesome music, and is super-deep as far as learning to play all of the characters effectively.

3. Ecco the Dolphin: The Tides of Time - stunning graphics for its time, looks gorgeous still today. Tons of depth - many worlds to explore, and a difficulty curve that's just right.

4. Legend of Zelda and Link to the Past. No need to defend this one.
5. Super Mario games (NES and SNES). Same. The list could go on and on.
 
Going to disagree with about everyone in this thread and say that there has been quality games from the beginning until now.

The only difference between then and now is it has gotten progressively harder to sort the good games from the bad.

I actually went on a long spree of playing games after graduating college. Looked up the best games on every system and tried them out. Unfortunately I never quite finished, though I still feel like that experience gave me quite a good knowledge base for this topic.
The timeline would be quite extensive so I'll just give the highlights.

Actually not much time so I'll name some that really should have gotten more attention in this thread and are great examples of games that you could play NOW and they would put many modern games to shame.

Super Mario Bros. 3 - talk about universality. Just about ANYONE could pick up that game and enjoy it and it holds up to ANY game out there.

Starcraft 1. Not 8/16 bit but came out at about the end of that era. Really hard to think of any game that can touch it. And I'm only talking about the single-player.

Doom 1. Yes even this game is better than most modern games.

Chrono Trigger.

FF6. Sorry Cloud fans but FF6 has stood the test of time much better than FF7. FF7 really only has 2 solid characters, Cloud and Sephiroth, which means the game can get quite boring sometimes. Unlike 6 which is great just about all the way through.


There's more but I'll move on to name some games that were great during the time from then to now. Half-life. DMC 1. Most Ratchet N Clank games. God of War 1,2. Ocarina of time. Super Mario 64. Paper Mario. Onimusha 1. Knights of the Old Republic. FEAR 1. Portal 1. MGS1 could probably be put on this list.

Again plenty more but some final comments. Microsoft..... happened. Someone please name one exclusive xbox or xbox 360 game (single player) that has a genuinely good replay experience if you were to play it now. Because I can't. Don't say Gears of War it got beaten to death by 2 and 3. Also... WOW.... happened. Don't even get me started on how WOW ruined gaming for awhile.

Want a good modern game that has classic appeal and could be compared with the best of the classics? Osmos. The Witcher (some might not consider this a modern game now though). The Steam Store itself (you collect games like kids collect pokemon don't deny it). .....Not as much classic appeal but comparable in quality: Walking Dead ***have not played this myself yet***. Batman Arkham Asylum. Dragon Age 1.

And I'll just say you can't call yourself a hardcore gamer if you haven't beat Battletoads on the NES yet. :) And actually the final level was pretty damn good but very few people made it there. And when I say very few I mean like... 300 people total in the US?
 
Last edited:
Agreed Flegg.

Lots of great games then and now. Nostalgia is a very powerful emotion and as you get older it only gets stronger. Being objective is really all you can do.
 
I'd like to reiterate the notion that the steam store itself is one of the greatest games of the modern era.

Also I just looked him up and I think this substantiates my point quite a bit: OP likes classic games but he hasn't even played Osmos yet. Nor has he played Trials 2.
 
Last edited:
A few years back I started thinking about the old days and how I would run home with a horde of friends

after school just so we could spend hours on end playing games on my Sinclair Spectrum 48k. Granted, we spent more time lwiting for the games to load than actually playing them and the stupid keyboard membrane would burn at the connectors rendering a few keys unusable if you played too long.

But anyways I started browsing ebay in the UK for some nostalgic reasons and found to my big surprise that the comps were dirt cheap and often came with a ton of games, interfaces, drives and joysticks. I just couldn't resist the urge to buy and in a few months I bought tons of stuff.

When I hooked the Spectrum up I was really super excited, and the games were exactly how I remembered them...terrible graphics, stupidly difficult and fast paced but man, that was awesome to say the least :D
Here's a few of the games I still love to play: (I have not taken these screenshots myself)
598ejjJ.png

ivWlsPS.png

U3lRoAV.png

BOULDER DASH
wh2kcJ8.png

JETSET WILLY
DK76kZq.png

KNIGHTLORE
EY1oXra.png

HEAD OVER HEELS
zzABMJU.png

UNDERWURLDE
 
For me, great games are still being made (Starbound, Wasteland 2 albeit still in beta), but within the mainstream catalog, it gets harder to find quality games anymore. The biggest problem for me is that games today gets fragmented thanks to DLC business model. Content gets cut out and it diminishes the quality and worthy of a game.

B2BigAl said:
Lot of rose tinted glasses around here. My first system was an Atari 2600 when I was 5 years old. I lived through all of it, and most of those games were god awful in comparison to what we have today. Sorry, I have good childhood memories of a lot of those games too, but its like comparing a WWI bi-plane to an F-22.
Click to expand...

I disagree with that comparison. There are games where technology alone can improves the game experience, for example the Elder Scrolls series where one of it's main attraction is exploring a large open world, and sure advance technology allows a more interesting world to be created.

But not every game is withheld by technology. For example I've played Sonic Generations, the graphics are pretty, but I do not enjoy it as much (or find it as memorable) as the Sega Genesis' Sonic 1. Mortal Kombat was another series that IMO got less spectacular when it went on the PS1 and 2 with all the 3D stuff. 3D did nothing to improve the game.
 
alot of the older games had better pacing in the way they told the story. They were more linear and not sandboxes so that helped alot as well.
There's like 3 things that bug me in modern games.

-Focus only on graphics. Publisher pushes developers to focus only on updating the game engine every 1-2 years. story and gameplay pushed aside.

-Games that aren't multi player. Publisher pushes social aspect in game. Add multiplayer at the expense of single story campaign. Result poor storytelling and pacing.

-Interesting story chopped up and spread out over a 40 hours just to make it "worth" 60$.
All the the expense of gameplay and of course story pacing.

good games would have all three aspect balanced. gameplay , story and pacing.
Graphics aren't a necessity but can't hurt if u got all of em lined up.
I'd use uncharted 1 as an example or mirror's edge.

i liked final fantasy III a lot more than i did ff12 and didn't have to fall back on nostalgia .
 
The old games, were better for "small children". They were fun, in the sense that you were actually laughing and cheering. Not so much today from videos i see from players posting themselves. Nowdays seems more like "game" and "fun" is planning for 30 minutes your next move. Some videos i see, seem like the "player" is...working to achieve a goal. Wait, working is game?

Old games were better, because they couldn't rely neither on graphics nor on audio to sell. Either they had a "catchy" gameplay or they wouldn't sell. Simple as that. Today, you read about people saying "I bought it for the graphics, but i stopped playing after 10 hours". 10 hours? 20 hours? 30 hours? I don't think there was a single game "worthy of the name" back in 8bit era that you would play so little time.

Modern games are more "adult" games. More about thinking, planning, executing in cold blood, not much laughter involved, much more cursing.

Old games where SO good, that people would pay for a text adventure. A game, where all the "graphics" where only inside your HEAD. Leisure Suit Larry, where are you?
RPGs where battles were fought only inside your HEAD. Bard's tale, where are you?

Nowdays, at 12 years old, a kid is an expert in "combat simulation", knows all assault rifles and how to hold breath to make a sniper shot. Since when is that called "game"?

Oh well... one can't understand what he hasn't lived...

http://www.cpcgamereviews.com/

Besides, they were awesome for small children to build reflexes. Whoever has played those games, got quick hand reflexes and finger ability for life :)
 
Last edited:
And this is an example, of how you could make EPIC game music with a horrible sound card:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cXyRPhLYn8 (best part at 4:26)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teIecp4AJ_Q

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mi_Vszhgy_I EPIC 2009 Remix: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJcxU67LX2s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfNJLAKSfgI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdQg36osy9g

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzBniRsyr4w

EDIT: I almost forgot. A "signature music" of the era. Ghosts n Goblins! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puRBdkKsO4E


This was the equivalent of the various Battlefield of now:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNklYh5LUJU

^ It was great, because it was a children's game! You were "seeking" and pulling the trigger for...instant gratification... That's what children want... Before computers, children were playing simple games, with lots of fun and instant gratification.

And gone are all the great, simple, yet complicated "karate games". So much fun for a 10 year old!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwIpnP5u3bY
 
Last edited:
maboblivion said:
alot of the older games had better pacing in the way they told the story. They were more linear and not sandboxes so that helped alot as well.
There's like 3 things that bug me in modern games.

-Focus only on graphics. Publisher pushes developers to focus only on updating the game engine every 1-2 years. story and gameplay pushed aside.
Click to expand...

Being an adventure game fan, this bugs me. Games have always been about the graphics. Don't pretend that gameplay mattered more back yesteryear, because it just isn't true. The developers would sacrifice gameplay in a minute if it gave them eye popping 20 colors on the screen instead of 8 or 16.

When King's Quest came out, it was claimed to look just like a Saturday morning cartoon. We laugh at this today because honestly, it looks quite ugly in today's high def world. But it was a thing of beauty in 1984. This, however, brought down a ton of hate by adventure game fans complaining how the great graphics came at the price of dumbing down gameplay, because text adventures could parse whole sentences and were getting quite complex whereas King's Quest went back to verb/noun. Guess who won at the end of the day? Not the complex gameplay of text adventures, but the horrible gameplay of the beautiful Hi-Res adventure games.

And computer games were a lot less linear, particularly in the RPG and Adventure genre. Once I knew what to do, I could beat most Sierra games in under an hour. I could beat most of the Ultima games in under 6 hours. And I'm not talking speed runs here. Want to go to the last dungeon before the first town? You can do that. You might not last long, especially without armor and a weapon, but you're given the choice. Putting up obstacles to make games linear was too resource intensive.

It's not like console games were any different. They aspired to be as close to the arcade as possible. The Super FX chip was heavily advertised, and even when Battletoads came out, it was hyped due to it's parallax scrolling abilities. Gameplay hasn't gotten worse either. It's just become more complicated. There's only so much you can do with 2 buttons (4 if you count select and start) and limited hardware (such as a fixed amount of visible sprites). Strip away the graphics and music, and SMB or Battletoads are identical gameplay wise to many other games on the NES, many of which aren't considered classics today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top