The game gets the pace this time, and it came with enough content, differently from V.
The traditional Civilization shit is here, and all the problems included.
And they tried to make the non-city tiles gain more depth, what is a nice addition.
The major problem in this one particularly is the the way they tried to install a more paradox-oriented gameplay, being a much more agressive game, that requires you to battle in constant war and go for expansion over other types of gameplay, that when exist, are complementary to the gameplay. What works really well for Europa Universalis, crumbles for Civilization. Mostly because EU is a far more complex game, that allows you to manage economy, diplomacy, spionage, development, administration and military at the same time, with each one having its own system, that while integrated in a whole cohesive experience, are in itself independent from each other. In Civilization, each one of these systems are grounded and tied to the buildings and therefore to city production. So you can't go full onto everything and have to focus more in some aspects of the gameplay than others. This is, normally, quite interesting, this oblige you to make choices and sacrifices, and also give a lot of incentive to replay focusing in differing aspects of the gameplay. The problem is when the game is war-focused, the tendendcy is that you ignore most other systems and prioritize Military. This works in EUIV for instance, because you don't have to choose between developing your army, your territory and your economy, you can do the three at the same time. In Civilization, specially in the early to mid game, you have to focus in one specifical aspect. Untill VI, this was really easy to handle, the not so agressive nature of the game allowed you to manage an reasonable army and with careful diplomatic relations you could barely always avoid war, and if you wanted assembly an army but also do other things, you could focus basically on expansion in the early game and when you have an good amount of cities, than assembly an army while putting up other types of building. In Civ VI, from the get go, your focus have to be Army. If you focus to much on expansion, your neighboor will invade you. Try cultural victory, you will be invaded. Try diplomatic victory, you will be invaded.
Once again, the game is not awful, and the core is solid. But fails to understand what make Civilization appealing in the first place and end up more with cheap fun than with a truly well designed game.
The traditional Civilization shit is here, and all the problems included.
And they tried to make the non-city tiles gain more depth, what is a nice addition.
The major problem in this one particularly is the the way they tried to install a more paradox-oriented gameplay, being a much more agressive game, that requires you to battle in constant war and go for expansion over other types of gameplay, that when exist, are complementary to the gameplay. What works really well for Europa Universalis, crumbles for Civilization. Mostly because EU is a far more complex game, that allows you to manage economy, diplomacy, spionage, development, administration and military at the same time, with each one having its own system, that while integrated in a whole cohesive experience, are in itself independent from each other. In Civilization, each one of these systems are grounded and tied to the buildings and therefore to city production. So you can't go full onto everything and have to focus more in some aspects of the gameplay than others. This is, normally, quite interesting, this oblige you to make choices and sacrifices, and also give a lot of incentive to replay focusing in differing aspects of the gameplay. The problem is when the game is war-focused, the tendendcy is that you ignore most other systems and prioritize Military. This works in EUIV for instance, because you don't have to choose between developing your army, your territory and your economy, you can do the three at the same time. In Civilization, specially in the early to mid game, you have to focus in one specifical aspect. Untill VI, this was really easy to handle, the not so agressive nature of the game allowed you to manage an reasonable army and with careful diplomatic relations you could barely always avoid war, and if you wanted assembly an army but also do other things, you could focus basically on expansion in the early game and when you have an good amount of cities, than assembly an army while putting up other types of building. In Civ VI, from the get go, your focus have to be Army. If you focus to much on expansion, your neighboor will invade you. Try cultural victory, you will be invaded. Try diplomatic victory, you will be invaded.
Once again, the game is not awful, and the core is solid. But fails to understand what make Civilization appealing in the first place and end up more with cheap fun than with a truly well designed game.
1989
Amazing as something so simple can be so engaging at the same time
1996
Mario Kart Reviews (2/8)
I would like to start saying that i never had played "Mario Kart 64" (1996) prior to this experience. Being a kid from the 2000s made me start playing with the DS and Wii Mario Kart games. I had the oportunity, already in the 00s to play "Mario Kart Double Dash" (2002) in an acquainted's house, and later i would also end up playing "Super Mario Kart" (1992) in SNES emulators. But i never tried the N64 one. I'm saying this because this is a game a lot of people have a ton of nostalgia for, an nostalgia that won't play a role in my review, because i can't simply relate to (wait for the DS review).
I know, as a huge Mario Kart series fan, that i had to play this one. Is regarded by many people as a classic and was a big hit back in the day. But also, that maybe i wouldn't like this one that much.
At the time, this game was somewhat criticized for being to much alike to its predecessor, in here lies most of its virtues, but also, most of its flaws. To be fair, i don't think this game play out exactly like SMK, that one feels like an standard racing game with battle elements, this one inaugurate the Kart racing genre in its totality, and honestly feels distinct from other forms of Arcade Racing. The great problem is that a lot of what hindered the original game, hinders this one also, altough, not in the same extent and definitely not in the same way. This game feels pretty much like what the SNES
iteration should've been since the beginning, but couldn't because of the atrocious track design and troll in-track hazards. This is, by every mean, an needed step up, but at the same time, is not an outstanding game by any means.
First thing, its handling. The first game of the series was an extremely heavy game to control, so they needed to change it, and they lost the tone completely while doing it. Now the kart feel extremely light, and hard to control by the exact opposite to why the last game was hard to control, although anyone would have to admit that the control on this game is better than its predecessor. A lot of times you try to make the curve and your Kart will go towards the open part of the curve and a lot of time will get outside of the track way easier than you would expect. The major problem is that is a pain in the ass to dodge from oncoming hazards, particularly at short range, a lot of times you will make the correct move in the joystick and the kart won't move. But also, if you lean to hard to the side, your kart will try a full turn. Either way, you have to eat a loss. Beside that the game feel miles better. Having an effective and manual drift helps a lot, although a little bit difficult to control (not in the good technical sense, but in the clunk sense), and the fact you barely don't have to slow down in this game, make it being so much more dynamic and allow much more options during the race.
The visuals are outstanding, the characters are full of charm and the tracks are in general nice to see too. The OST is cool too.
The items are mostly to 1 vs 1, like the last game, not being a particularly item heavy Mario Kart, although it does a little better in that department. The Thunder item and the Blue Shell helps a lot with position managing, particularly dealing with the higher standings, but still lacks items that help lower standing racers to catch up. An complaint would be that the speed boost, both the normal mushroom and the newly added gold mushroom, feel really weird, as it the boost is not that relevant at some times.
For god sake the game don't punish you so much with in game hazards as SMK. My only complaint is that clearly some of the hazards ignore Bots and go directly towards you, like the Thwomps in "Bowser's Castle" or the Chomp Chomps in "Rainbow Road". But differently from SMK that falling out of the track had a reasonable time to get back to the race, here, falling out of the track means that you probably start at the 8th position, even if you was in 1st place, is just too long, and in some cases, like "Yoshi Valley" is an eternity.
The roster is nice, altough they feel less different from each other compared with the last one.
Every single Mario Kart have some deegree of Balancing issues, in this one the heavy characters are way easier to play, since the handling is so light, while winning most of the phyisical matchups, that play a significant role in this game.
I know that in the N64 era, the fact that the console could put up to 4 controllers made Nintendo highly focus on multiplayer experiences. "Golden Eye 007" (1997), "Super Smash Bros." (1999), "Wave Race 64" (1996) and the entire Pokemon Stadium and Mario Party trilogies. "Mario Kart 64" is not only not an exception to this, as it is probably the premier multiplayer experience in N64. This multiplayer is decidely fun, the battle mode is amazing, way more dynamic than SMK one, an not as broken as the battle mode became from Wii onwards, also, the joy of playing Mario Kart split screen with 4 friends is unmatched. That being said, this game hardly lacks in single player content. Only 4 cups, no unlockable characters, and the only thing you unlock is the mirror mode. This is the kind of game you would own to play only when your friends were at your house.
The track design is mixed. Most of it is nice, having cool concepts, but in general, being really limited, restricting a lot the player creativity and being somewhat repetitive internally. A lot of them have a cool gimmick, but some of them like "Kalimari Desert" and "Yoshi Valley" altough cool in concept, are quite annoying in the race. There are not many that allow you to take shortcuts or use your skill and creativity to express yourself and do cool things, and a lot don't even have offroad and are just track lines with aesthetical themes.
Mushroom Cup Tracks
Luigi Raceway- The Bland generic first track that every single mario kart game have. It is a necessary evil, allows begginers to play without paying attention to gimmicks or distractions. Not bad, but nothing special, could have a better racing layout tho.
Moo Moo Farm- The concept is pretty cool and god bless this game don't have the annoying Mounty Mole like the last one. But the layout is not interesting and the lack of offroad or any interesting thing happening make it so limited and boring. Moo Moo Meadows shown us later on how to do an way better track with the exact same concept.
Koopa Tropa Beach- Your Standard beach track. While not being "Peach Beach" level, is quite cool, with some parting ways and some nice ways of using speed boost and shortcuts.
Kalimari Desert- The concept is cool, the execution not so much. The timing of the train in the first lap is bad, and you always have to stop and wait the train twice, and beside the train gimmick, there's not much more to be have.
Flower Cup Tracks
Mario Raceway- This one is very pleasant. While the concept being the standard Mario track, this one excels at it. The layout is very very cool, have a lot of interesting curves to drift, some places to use speed boost and overall a very good track.
Frapee Snowland- Boring. While not being atrocious as the snow tracks in SMK, is a quite boring track. You can't see where the offroad ends and is just bland and generic overall.
Choco Mountain- Nice track. Is ugly visually, but have some elements going for, the falling rocks and the fact you can fall and get into the other part of the track for instance.
Toad's Turnpike- Nice concept, awful execution. While it have to be 8 shaped? Really repetitive and boring, you pretty much do the same thing the whole track.
Star Cup Tracks
Wario Stadium- Fun concept, and have some things happening. Overstays its welcome a little bit. The problem is: a good design for a track, is not just the layout and the gimmicks, but how well it ties to the game handling. This game is not fit to extremely tight curves. In SMK you would hit the wall inside the curve, here you hit the wall outside the curve.
Sherbet Island- This a classic. Quite remarkable. There are two different stages, while having a fun layout and a lot of interesting things happening, one of the most fitting for handling.
Royal Raceway- There are better Peach tracks, but this one is not bad. But is nothing special either. At least have some offroad that you can speed boost through.
Bowser's Castle- This track is amazing, one of the best in the entire series. I normally always like Bowser's Castle tracks, even the SNES one if you ignore some atrocious design flaws. But this one is special. Have a lot of different levels with its differing challenges, a really cool layout, some fun drifting parts and a lot of fun you can have trying stuff here. But this face the same problem with Wario Stadium, 90o angles are ass to make in MK64, this is why this feels so much better to race in the Wii version. Also, the goddamn Thwomp that ignore other racers and follow you in GP Mode.
Special Cup
DK Jungle Parkway- Quite quite fun. Have some different levels, the bridge is really fun to trap other racers, the coconut being shot in the forest is interesting and the cave have a nice place to speed boost to. The only problem is that the big jump across the river is really poorly handled in this version and you loose all the momentum. Another track that is better at the Wii version.
Yoshi Valley- Cool concept, awful execution. The parting ways are nice, but the fact that you don't know in which position you are although fun at first, quickly become annoying. Not a fan of that one.
Banshee Boardwalk- I hate that one. Not the concept and overall execution, this is ok. Is literally an enhanced "Ghost Valley" concept. But the layout does not fit the 64 handling, but way worse than Wario Stadium and Bowsers's Castle. When even the AI on 50cc consistently hit the walls during the track you know that is not a fit. This is just not fun, while also not being the very best track in the world, but i can't stance how better it is to race this one in DS.
Rainbow Road- This track had everything to be amazing really. The layout is really fun, and feel fun to play, stancing the strong points of the game handling. But there are two major problems. 1- Goddamn the Chomp Chomps clearly follow the player in Single Player. Very cheap 2- Overstays its welcome. If it was shorter would be way more enjoyable.
So overall, the tracks are ok. Some bad ones, not many awful and some great, most of it just fine.
The last element that i want to talk about is the rubber band. Rubber Band difficulty is not bad itself, and to be fair, most games use it, but here is just too much of rubber band, in an EA Sports fashion, particularly when you're faring well, and the way they strecht the challenge, just as EA Sports, is really really cheap, mostly for giving an unfair speed boost to the other racers. That is why is almost impossible to gain separation from the 2nd place, even if you are able to pull up some really cool stuff with drifting and speed boosts, or take shortcuts. And is really annoying having the other racers pretty much in your back the entire race. It do create a challenge, but just feels overall cheal and lazy, and you feel that you don't have much control in the outcome of the race.
If "Super Mario Kart" was cheap fun just at times, and mostly a bad game, this one is great at times and mostly cheap fun. Is a nice game, and i don't think is fair to call it a bad game, but is far from being a great one. I know that most people that have this as its favorite Mario Kart, have out of nostalgia, but to me is outrageous to say this one is better than "...Double Dash", "Mario Kart DS" (2005) or "Mario Kart 8" (2014). If you can play that with friends, i would not pass the opportunity.
I would like to start saying that i never had played "Mario Kart 64" (1996) prior to this experience. Being a kid from the 2000s made me start playing with the DS and Wii Mario Kart games. I had the oportunity, already in the 00s to play "Mario Kart Double Dash" (2002) in an acquainted's house, and later i would also end up playing "Super Mario Kart" (1992) in SNES emulators. But i never tried the N64 one. I'm saying this because this is a game a lot of people have a ton of nostalgia for, an nostalgia that won't play a role in my review, because i can't simply relate to (wait for the DS review).
I know, as a huge Mario Kart series fan, that i had to play this one. Is regarded by many people as a classic and was a big hit back in the day. But also, that maybe i wouldn't like this one that much.
At the time, this game was somewhat criticized for being to much alike to its predecessor, in here lies most of its virtues, but also, most of its flaws. To be fair, i don't think this game play out exactly like SMK, that one feels like an standard racing game with battle elements, this one inaugurate the Kart racing genre in its totality, and honestly feels distinct from other forms of Arcade Racing. The great problem is that a lot of what hindered the original game, hinders this one also, altough, not in the same extent and definitely not in the same way. This game feels pretty much like what the SNES
iteration should've been since the beginning, but couldn't because of the atrocious track design and troll in-track hazards. This is, by every mean, an needed step up, but at the same time, is not an outstanding game by any means.
First thing, its handling. The first game of the series was an extremely heavy game to control, so they needed to change it, and they lost the tone completely while doing it. Now the kart feel extremely light, and hard to control by the exact opposite to why the last game was hard to control, although anyone would have to admit that the control on this game is better than its predecessor. A lot of times you try to make the curve and your Kart will go towards the open part of the curve and a lot of time will get outside of the track way easier than you would expect. The major problem is that is a pain in the ass to dodge from oncoming hazards, particularly at short range, a lot of times you will make the correct move in the joystick and the kart won't move. But also, if you lean to hard to the side, your kart will try a full turn. Either way, you have to eat a loss. Beside that the game feel miles better. Having an effective and manual drift helps a lot, although a little bit difficult to control (not in the good technical sense, but in the clunk sense), and the fact you barely don't have to slow down in this game, make it being so much more dynamic and allow much more options during the race.
The visuals are outstanding, the characters are full of charm and the tracks are in general nice to see too. The OST is cool too.
The items are mostly to 1 vs 1, like the last game, not being a particularly item heavy Mario Kart, although it does a little better in that department. The Thunder item and the Blue Shell helps a lot with position managing, particularly dealing with the higher standings, but still lacks items that help lower standing racers to catch up. An complaint would be that the speed boost, both the normal mushroom and the newly added gold mushroom, feel really weird, as it the boost is not that relevant at some times.
For god sake the game don't punish you so much with in game hazards as SMK. My only complaint is that clearly some of the hazards ignore Bots and go directly towards you, like the Thwomps in "Bowser's Castle" or the Chomp Chomps in "Rainbow Road". But differently from SMK that falling out of the track had a reasonable time to get back to the race, here, falling out of the track means that you probably start at the 8th position, even if you was in 1st place, is just too long, and in some cases, like "Yoshi Valley" is an eternity.
The roster is nice, altough they feel less different from each other compared with the last one.
Every single Mario Kart have some deegree of Balancing issues, in this one the heavy characters are way easier to play, since the handling is so light, while winning most of the phyisical matchups, that play a significant role in this game.
I know that in the N64 era, the fact that the console could put up to 4 controllers made Nintendo highly focus on multiplayer experiences. "Golden Eye 007" (1997), "Super Smash Bros." (1999), "Wave Race 64" (1996) and the entire Pokemon Stadium and Mario Party trilogies. "Mario Kart 64" is not only not an exception to this, as it is probably the premier multiplayer experience in N64. This multiplayer is decidely fun, the battle mode is amazing, way more dynamic than SMK one, an not as broken as the battle mode became from Wii onwards, also, the joy of playing Mario Kart split screen with 4 friends is unmatched. That being said, this game hardly lacks in single player content. Only 4 cups, no unlockable characters, and the only thing you unlock is the mirror mode. This is the kind of game you would own to play only when your friends were at your house.
The track design is mixed. Most of it is nice, having cool concepts, but in general, being really limited, restricting a lot the player creativity and being somewhat repetitive internally. A lot of them have a cool gimmick, but some of them like "Kalimari Desert" and "Yoshi Valley" altough cool in concept, are quite annoying in the race. There are not many that allow you to take shortcuts or use your skill and creativity to express yourself and do cool things, and a lot don't even have offroad and are just track lines with aesthetical themes.
Mushroom Cup Tracks
Luigi Raceway- The Bland generic first track that every single mario kart game have. It is a necessary evil, allows begginers to play without paying attention to gimmicks or distractions. Not bad, but nothing special, could have a better racing layout tho.
Moo Moo Farm- The concept is pretty cool and god bless this game don't have the annoying Mounty Mole like the last one. But the layout is not interesting and the lack of offroad or any interesting thing happening make it so limited and boring. Moo Moo Meadows shown us later on how to do an way better track with the exact same concept.
Koopa Tropa Beach- Your Standard beach track. While not being "Peach Beach" level, is quite cool, with some parting ways and some nice ways of using speed boost and shortcuts.
Kalimari Desert- The concept is cool, the execution not so much. The timing of the train in the first lap is bad, and you always have to stop and wait the train twice, and beside the train gimmick, there's not much more to be have.
Flower Cup Tracks
Mario Raceway- This one is very pleasant. While the concept being the standard Mario track, this one excels at it. The layout is very very cool, have a lot of interesting curves to drift, some places to use speed boost and overall a very good track.
Frapee Snowland- Boring. While not being atrocious as the snow tracks in SMK, is a quite boring track. You can't see where the offroad ends and is just bland and generic overall.
Choco Mountain- Nice track. Is ugly visually, but have some elements going for, the falling rocks and the fact you can fall and get into the other part of the track for instance.
Toad's Turnpike- Nice concept, awful execution. While it have to be 8 shaped? Really repetitive and boring, you pretty much do the same thing the whole track.
Star Cup Tracks
Wario Stadium- Fun concept, and have some things happening. Overstays its welcome a little bit. The problem is: a good design for a track, is not just the layout and the gimmicks, but how well it ties to the game handling. This game is not fit to extremely tight curves. In SMK you would hit the wall inside the curve, here you hit the wall outside the curve.
Sherbet Island- This a classic. Quite remarkable. There are two different stages, while having a fun layout and a lot of interesting things happening, one of the most fitting for handling.
Royal Raceway- There are better Peach tracks, but this one is not bad. But is nothing special either. At least have some offroad that you can speed boost through.
Bowser's Castle- This track is amazing, one of the best in the entire series. I normally always like Bowser's Castle tracks, even the SNES one if you ignore some atrocious design flaws. But this one is special. Have a lot of different levels with its differing challenges, a really cool layout, some fun drifting parts and a lot of fun you can have trying stuff here. But this face the same problem with Wario Stadium, 90o angles are ass to make in MK64, this is why this feels so much better to race in the Wii version. Also, the goddamn Thwomp that ignore other racers and follow you in GP Mode.
Special Cup
DK Jungle Parkway- Quite quite fun. Have some different levels, the bridge is really fun to trap other racers, the coconut being shot in the forest is interesting and the cave have a nice place to speed boost to. The only problem is that the big jump across the river is really poorly handled in this version and you loose all the momentum. Another track that is better at the Wii version.
Yoshi Valley- Cool concept, awful execution. The parting ways are nice, but the fact that you don't know in which position you are although fun at first, quickly become annoying. Not a fan of that one.
Banshee Boardwalk- I hate that one. Not the concept and overall execution, this is ok. Is literally an enhanced "Ghost Valley" concept. But the layout does not fit the 64 handling, but way worse than Wario Stadium and Bowsers's Castle. When even the AI on 50cc consistently hit the walls during the track you know that is not a fit. This is just not fun, while also not being the very best track in the world, but i can't stance how better it is to race this one in DS.
Rainbow Road- This track had everything to be amazing really. The layout is really fun, and feel fun to play, stancing the strong points of the game handling. But there are two major problems. 1- Goddamn the Chomp Chomps clearly follow the player in Single Player. Very cheap 2- Overstays its welcome. If it was shorter would be way more enjoyable.
So overall, the tracks are ok. Some bad ones, not many awful and some great, most of it just fine.
The last element that i want to talk about is the rubber band. Rubber Band difficulty is not bad itself, and to be fair, most games use it, but here is just too much of rubber band, in an EA Sports fashion, particularly when you're faring well, and the way they strecht the challenge, just as EA Sports, is really really cheap, mostly for giving an unfair speed boost to the other racers. That is why is almost impossible to gain separation from the 2nd place, even if you are able to pull up some really cool stuff with drifting and speed boosts, or take shortcuts. And is really annoying having the other racers pretty much in your back the entire race. It do create a challenge, but just feels overall cheal and lazy, and you feel that you don't have much control in the outcome of the race.
If "Super Mario Kart" was cheap fun just at times, and mostly a bad game, this one is great at times and mostly cheap fun. Is a nice game, and i don't think is fair to call it a bad game, but is far from being a great one. I know that most people that have this as its favorite Mario Kart, have out of nostalgia, but to me is outrageous to say this one is better than "...Double Dash", "Mario Kart DS" (2005) or "Mario Kart 8" (2014). If you can play that with friends, i would not pass the opportunity.
1988
Great Concepts and Ideas extremely hindered by boring sequences (particularly the digging ones), too much repetition, a lot of troll design, unpolishness and technical errors, brokeness, imprecise and irresponsive movement and one of the worst hit boxes i've ever saw in a game.
This is still a better game than japanese Mario 2 tho
This is still a better game than japanese Mario 2 tho
2019
The Only thing separating me from giving an 10/10 to this game is the fact it sells you the idea that your decisions matter, even when you are not deliberately choosing between options (like in the "don't kill nobody" missions), and pull some Silent Hill type of multiple endings, but deliver an absolutely straight forward and linear story where your choices don't matter at all (besides dying earlier and missing content and having an optional secret boss)
I also, beside understanding the appeal metaphorically and aesthetically, think the mask guys seem out of tone and misplaced, their choice and the the way they do what they do. I understand this game is deliberately not answering the questions of its narrative, and lefting a lot of room to mystery, and im ok with that. But all the other mysteries seem to have an conceptual cohesion with the general aesthetics and overall points of the narratives, and the masked guys come as out of the tone of the narrative and the concepts that it presents (besides all the death alegories and the ethical question they pose, but i'm talking more about them being mystical beings that interfer in an non mundane way)
Besides that, this game is superb in everything.
I also, beside understanding the appeal metaphorically and aesthetically, think the mask guys seem out of tone and misplaced, their choice and the the way they do what they do. I understand this game is deliberately not answering the questions of its narrative, and lefting a lot of room to mystery, and im ok with that. But all the other mysteries seem to have an conceptual cohesion with the general aesthetics and overall points of the narratives, and the masked guys come as out of the tone of the narrative and the concepts that it presents (besides all the death alegories and the ethical question they pose, but i'm talking more about them being mystical beings that interfer in an non mundane way)
Besides that, this game is superb in everything.
1989
At least they were trying
1990
This game is the barely perfect 2d Platformer Experience.
The only thing that hurts this game a little bit is the Old School Mario Bullshit, that hurt a lot Mario 2 and 3. In this game, altough not completely gone, is definitely way less prevalent.
You still have troll design, but just a little bit
You still have the uncecessary waiting sections created by design, but only in a few levels
You still have trial and error design, but only in a couple of levels (the major problem is that in World 5 and 6 the castle is blocked by secret exits, what is a pretty nonsense Choice. Im fine with Special Levels hidden behind guessing bullshit, but not for levels you are required to acess to beat the game)
You still have the slow auto-scrollers, but not nearly as much as you had in "Super Mario Bros. 3"
The bosses are still gimmicks, with waiting sections and exploitable, but are definitenly improvement in variety and challenge, while being less exploitable and requiring less waiting (the exception is Bowser, which is a pretty bad boss in every game of the series so far)
Everything else is perfect
Is gorgeous
Is charming
The controls feel good, responsive and precise, while also being smooth and fast paced
The level designs are top tier most of the time, and you don't have much of a share of bad levels designs like in SMB3
The differentiation between normal jump and spin jump give the game an pretty substantial mechanical depth while also being quite simple to learn the basics
The concepts of the levels are mezmerizing.
Yoshi is a cool add
There is a lot of variety, on enemies and challenges
The Soundtrack slaps hard
Really, i think very few 2d plattformers can have the same amount of quality of this game. And although with a few drawbacks, this may be the best 2d plattformer i've ever played.
Nintendo in the 4th gen really stepped up their game and take games that were good to a even greater level, and this is in every sense a step up from the formula they stablished in SMB3 (just as A Link to the Past a Step Up from the Original TLoZ, Super Metroid a Step Up from Metroid, Mother 2 a Step Up from Mother, All the SNES Fire Emblem a Step Up from the NES Fire Emblem)
To call this a classic is an understatement.
The only thing that hurts this game a little bit is the Old School Mario Bullshit, that hurt a lot Mario 2 and 3. In this game, altough not completely gone, is definitely way less prevalent.
You still have troll design, but just a little bit
You still have the uncecessary waiting sections created by design, but only in a few levels
You still have trial and error design, but only in a couple of levels (the major problem is that in World 5 and 6 the castle is blocked by secret exits, what is a pretty nonsense Choice. Im fine with Special Levels hidden behind guessing bullshit, but not for levels you are required to acess to beat the game)
You still have the slow auto-scrollers, but not nearly as much as you had in "Super Mario Bros. 3"
The bosses are still gimmicks, with waiting sections and exploitable, but are definitenly improvement in variety and challenge, while being less exploitable and requiring less waiting (the exception is Bowser, which is a pretty bad boss in every game of the series so far)
Everything else is perfect
Is gorgeous
Is charming
The controls feel good, responsive and precise, while also being smooth and fast paced
The level designs are top tier most of the time, and you don't have much of a share of bad levels designs like in SMB3
The differentiation between normal jump and spin jump give the game an pretty substantial mechanical depth while also being quite simple to learn the basics
The concepts of the levels are mezmerizing.
Yoshi is a cool add
There is a lot of variety, on enemies and challenges
The Soundtrack slaps hard
Really, i think very few 2d plattformers can have the same amount of quality of this game. And although with a few drawbacks, this may be the best 2d plattformer i've ever played.
Nintendo in the 4th gen really stepped up their game and take games that were good to a even greater level, and this is in every sense a step up from the formula they stablished in SMB3 (just as A Link to the Past a Step Up from the Original TLoZ, Super Metroid a Step Up from Metroid, Mother 2 a Step Up from Mother, All the SNES Fire Emblem a Step Up from the NES Fire Emblem)
To call this a classic is an understatement.
2010
I love two things quite dearly: JRPGs and Gnosticism
Well, Xenoblade weirdly combines both of em'. I've become highly obsessive about this game
Well, Xenoblade weirdly combines both of em'. I've become highly obsessive about this game
2022
The best Pokemon since Black and White 2, also the most broken Pokemon, since... the last one, i guess???
One of the rare cases where the obvious tech demo for the accelerometer try actually to build a game instead of being a mere showcase. The idea of doing each level with a unique concept like Mario (and funnily enough, unlike Kirby platformers) is neat! But their choice of going for the most frustrating and punishing level design they could think make the game a chore (what is really like 90s Kirby games!). Sometimes the game also prefer the weird tech instead of the better design options. Particularly the jump, which is not functionable at all.
I'm glad that this exist but is a very passable game
I'm glad that this exist but is a very passable game
I thought this would be an major upgrade when compared to the first one, which I enjoyed but I had a lot of complaints to
But pretty much every single problem I had with "Donkey Kong Country" I had with this one
Just as the first game, this game is charming, with beautiful aesthetics and even more than the first game the style that Rare would employ in games such as "Banjoo-Kazooie" (1998) and "Conker's Bad Fur Day" (2000) are even more clear right now.
The game still employs the "Super Mario Bros. 3" (1988) and "Super Mario World" (1990) structure of presenting a concept per level, developing the concept through the level and then moving on to another concept, and the game can provide, just like the first one, a sufficient amount of variety in the concepts. Very rarely they repeat and even when it does repeat it is with some sort of twist. The game move toolkit is albeit simple, deep enough so you can have some freedom with it. The game move dynamics is also clearly based in Mario games, with it giving more attention to dynamism and chain movement than to precision.
I also find that the animals are much more interesting in the second game, with variety and how to use them when compared to the first game
But let's cover my shortcomings with the game
First is the synergy between the movement and the level design. Just like in the first game the level design is less optimized to you make a good usage of your moves, like in Mario games. But considering you have a ton of secrets through the levels, the movement justify itself. The problem is that the levels are designed with precision platform in mind. And hey, there's no problem with making precision platform games, "Celeste" (2018) and "Super Meat Boy" (2010) are good examples of this. But for the game be a interest precision platformer the game movement have to be built with this in mind. Just as I said in my review of "Super Mario Bros." (1985) and the review for the first "Donkey Kong Country", the loose and slippery movements that these games provide are complicated when the level design requires you precision platforming (this game is a little bit less aggressive with precision platforming when compared with the first one).
The game also have something I like to call old school Nintendo platformer bullshit: enemies flying in high speed in your screen like in the Kirby games and a design that punish you for trying to keep a constant chain of movements like in "Super Mario Bros. 3". The game teaches you that the most efficient way of playing it is either being super cautious and slow or to die until you memorized the whole level, neither seeming all that interesting. This combined with the fact that the game, just like in the "Super Mario Bros. 3" have just too much sections where you have to stop and wait something happen.
The game also, just like most Nintendo games, still have pretty poorly designed bosses. I didn't find none of the fights interesting and now they are way longer and sluggish than the first one. Most of them being structured around avoiding some hits, waiting till he open its weak point or some object that you can use to hit it being available and then just mechanically doing the action to kill it, for a few number of times.
The game also keeps, just like the first one, being very bad at displaying visual information. Is very confusing and hard to discern the background from the actual interactable level, most platform boxes are not exactly the same thing as its sprite and the I would often see myself jumping in things that are not actual platforms but the art of the background.
The frame keeps being not great. With it not revealing some necessary information often and making even worse the problem of moving objects within its frame.
Just like the first one this is a deeply flawed but enjoyable game. I just can't see the masterpiece that most people see in this game.
But pretty much every single problem I had with "Donkey Kong Country" I had with this one
Just as the first game, this game is charming, with beautiful aesthetics and even more than the first game the style that Rare would employ in games such as "Banjoo-Kazooie" (1998) and "Conker's Bad Fur Day" (2000) are even more clear right now.
The game still employs the "Super Mario Bros. 3" (1988) and "Super Mario World" (1990) structure of presenting a concept per level, developing the concept through the level and then moving on to another concept, and the game can provide, just like the first one, a sufficient amount of variety in the concepts. Very rarely they repeat and even when it does repeat it is with some sort of twist. The game move toolkit is albeit simple, deep enough so you can have some freedom with it. The game move dynamics is also clearly based in Mario games, with it giving more attention to dynamism and chain movement than to precision.
I also find that the animals are much more interesting in the second game, with variety and how to use them when compared to the first game
But let's cover my shortcomings with the game
First is the synergy between the movement and the level design. Just like in the first game the level design is less optimized to you make a good usage of your moves, like in Mario games. But considering you have a ton of secrets through the levels, the movement justify itself. The problem is that the levels are designed with precision platform in mind. And hey, there's no problem with making precision platform games, "Celeste" (2018) and "Super Meat Boy" (2010) are good examples of this. But for the game be a interest precision platformer the game movement have to be built with this in mind. Just as I said in my review of "Super Mario Bros." (1985) and the review for the first "Donkey Kong Country", the loose and slippery movements that these games provide are complicated when the level design requires you precision platforming (this game is a little bit less aggressive with precision platforming when compared with the first one).
The game also have something I like to call old school Nintendo platformer bullshit: enemies flying in high speed in your screen like in the Kirby games and a design that punish you for trying to keep a constant chain of movements like in "Super Mario Bros. 3". The game teaches you that the most efficient way of playing it is either being super cautious and slow or to die until you memorized the whole level, neither seeming all that interesting. This combined with the fact that the game, just like in the "Super Mario Bros. 3" have just too much sections where you have to stop and wait something happen.
The game also, just like most Nintendo games, still have pretty poorly designed bosses. I didn't find none of the fights interesting and now they are way longer and sluggish than the first one. Most of them being structured around avoiding some hits, waiting till he open its weak point or some object that you can use to hit it being available and then just mechanically doing the action to kill it, for a few number of times.
The game also keeps, just like the first one, being very bad at displaying visual information. Is very confusing and hard to discern the background from the actual interactable level, most platform boxes are not exactly the same thing as its sprite and the I would often see myself jumping in things that are not actual platforms but the art of the background.
The frame keeps being not great. With it not revealing some necessary information often and making even worse the problem of moving objects within its frame.
Just like the first one this is a deeply flawed but enjoyable game. I just can't see the masterpiece that most people see in this game.
1988
Another great NES game have its second half kinda ruined because the developers wanted to extended the playtime and put too much troll design and unfair challenges. This game is hard, yes, but its second half is not hard, is outright made to punish you, independently of how good you are. I also disliked the boss battle designs in general.
I really don't understand so much love for this game. I know that a lot of people start playing Civ with this game (i've started with Civ III and also played IV prior to V), and this create and emotional attachment to the game, but this game is one of the worst Civ games.
Apart from the traditional flaws from every Civ game, like some systems being either over simplified or a broken mess, or both (a good example in every single Civilization is Economy. Lacks depth in every game, while not being intuitive and is really weird. And every time, once you got the gimmick, is extremely easy to exploit with barely no thought put into), this game also have an awful slow pace, that don't seem to quite work with the simple design of Civilization games. Early game is heavily stalled, while Civ IV have a excellent and dynamic pace for comparison sake.
Most of the great additions were made by DLCs, and at the time the base game came in The Sims style, lacking a ton of content that should've come with the game.
Overall is not an bad exeperience (as you noticed by my grade) and you can definitely have the traditional civilization fun. The fact that now the civs feel way more different from each other was a extremely helpful to add some variation to the game (one of the few problems of Civ IV was the fact that every single gameplay felt like another one after a while), but definitely an hindered Civilization experience.
Apart from the traditional flaws from every Civ game, like some systems being either over simplified or a broken mess, or both (a good example in every single Civilization is Economy. Lacks depth in every game, while not being intuitive and is really weird. And every time, once you got the gimmick, is extremely easy to exploit with barely no thought put into), this game also have an awful slow pace, that don't seem to quite work with the simple design of Civilization games. Early game is heavily stalled, while Civ IV have a excellent and dynamic pace for comparison sake.
Most of the great additions were made by DLCs, and at the time the base game came in The Sims style, lacking a ton of content that should've come with the game.
Overall is not an bad exeperience (as you noticed by my grade) and you can definitely have the traditional civilization fun. The fact that now the civs feel way more different from each other was a extremely helpful to add some variation to the game (one of the few problems of Civ IV was the fact that every single gameplay felt like another one after a while), but definitely an hindered Civilization experience.
1985
One of the most influential games of all time, very unique loop even if compared with sucessors like "Puyo Puyo" and "Panel de Pon". The game have some strategy to it, skill progression and risk and reward relations, pretty neat to an game so early on in the genre
1994
This game have a vision and create a blueprint. Is just, it is it... the game don't utilize the swaping mechanic to its fullest, there's no progression, strategy is limited and is not very dynamic. Extremely influential but games as Panel de Pon and later Bejeweld will do this concept in a much better fashion