/vr/ - Retro Games

Hello /v/

Enjoy the first of many replies :)

>>2644765
Mfw

Awful bait, however I must say it is quite well written.

>>2644765
>Nintendo has kept this up even to this day with Mario

Which one?

>>2644765
It sold 40 million copies you dumbass. That's why he got so famous. It has a good world, great controls, and great gameplay. Take ur shit elsewhere

Seeing the art for SMB1 is always really weird.
The character designs were refined so much between 1 and 3.

>>2644807
Every

>>2644805
>>2644809
Nothing I pointed out is illegitimate nor are they direct knocks to the gameplay. At least try to be objective through your butthurt.

>>2644765
The clock in mario gives you 100 fucking years to lolly-gag through the levels.

Delete this fucking shit bait thread, "robbing them of their quarters"

>>2644812
It makes me believe NoA was right to change the boxart. It must've been pretty jarring to see this lush, animated cover then see the actual game and it's nowhere near the same.

>>2644824
>The clock in mario gives you 100 fucking years to lolly-gag through the levels.
Not really. The last castle is an example where you can get stuck just figuring out how to proceed.

Eat shit, dickbreath. Not everything is bait.

>>2644765
>following it's release
>it's
"its" you stupid fuck come back when you learn to operate an apostrophe

>>>/v/

saged for OP sucking too many cocks

>>2644843
haha, stay mad.

>>2644816
Actually right off the bat you have an illegitimate statement.

>The entire game is geared towards robbing the player of his/her quarters.

False. The game debuted on the Famicom in 1985. The arcade version, titled Vs. Super Mario Bros, was released in 1986, fuckface.

>>2644861
So? It's designed by arcade standards, dickwad. The point stands.

>>2644876
It's quite easy and forgiving by arcade standards.

>>2644879
I didn't say it was difficult, but "easy by arcade standards" is an understatement.

>>2644809
>great controls

Eh? Maybe I'm used to Mega Man and SMW but mister, I need some of your crack

>>2644765
>robbing people of quarters
the game was made for a home audience, not arcades, yes, it, and other NES games got to the arcades a few years later but it was due to the popularity of the system, not the other way around. In other words, you are stupid.

>>2644896
the controls are responsive, what the fuck else do you want from a game of that era? Also, please explain how the controls in SMB worse that that of Mega Man's? I'm a fan of the Mega Man games and don't particularly like the Mario series but I still think you are full of shit.

>>2644901
>the game was made for a home audience
I have your word or the obvious as fuck arcade design to go off of. I wonder which I should believe?

>>2644918
well the fact that it was originally made exclusively for a home system would be a good clue

>>2644918
You should believe in the obvious-as-fuck bait design of this thread.

>no save feature
>for a game you can beat in well under an hour

Shame on you, OP.

The original Mario Bros was made to steal quarters. And from 2 players at a time in most cases. Super Mario Bros was designed with home gaming in mind before the arcade and it shows.

>>2644765

You put in a lot more effort than that "le nes hell! :)" guy.

6/10.

>>2644968
as far as arcade games go, the original Mario Bros is amazingly easy. I think that's the genious of the game though, it focuses less on killing you as soon as it can and more the draw of having fun with two people at a time, which was a novel concept at the time. Yes, I know the early arcade games of the 70s were almost always 2 players, but for some reason in the early 80s things shifted to single player games.

>>2644957
>for a game you can beat in well under an hour
Assuming you don't die and go straight through

You guys have listed shit counterpoints so far.

>>2644986
Fuck off. If your only counterpoint is screaming "bait" then you know you don't have one.

I like /vr/ much better than /v/, but god forbid anyone talk down on a universally held classic. You guys just can't fucking handle it.

>>2645008
because your complaints are stupid non-complaints. It's not a quarter muncher it's easier as hell and fair and balanced. You have obviously never played an arcade game and are just a 10 year old who just got into retro gaming and is amazed old games are actually hard. Super mario is piss easy.
>>2644829
That level lets you fuck up multiple times to figure out the puzzle and still has time to spare. If you run out of time in the final level it is because you are literally retarded.

Your thread is bait and you only scream it's not bait to get more replies. You are either a stupid kid who legitimately believes what he is posting, or a baiting shit posting retard. Since you refuse to believe your posts are bait that makes you a the idiot kid.

>>2645026
>kid
>kid
>kid
Do you feel good? You considering the game easy does not mean it wouldn't take the average person back then many times to complete. You're using no better logic than I am, fuckface.

>>2645034
It took me many attempts to complete it as a child but it was still relatively easy compared to castlevania or ninja gaiden scrublord.

Well Op, when you're a shitter every arcade game robs you of your quarters.

>>2644910
Mario's controls are slippery as fuck.
It got better in SMB2, then reversed, then reached its high point in SMW

>>2644876
Then why was the arcade version redesigned to be more difficult? Console SMB is EZMODE

>>2644910
>the controls are responsive, what the fuck else do you want from a game of that era?
Double jump, slide kick, ground pound, wall cling, 8-way fireball aiming, charged shot, dive kick, and an air dash

Maybe then it wouldn't have so much artificial difficulty

>>2645649
>>2644910
>>2644910

when I first played Megaman, I thought his acceleration was super sluggish, to where I actually thought something was wrong. after getting used to how he controls I didn't even notice, though, and thought he felt responsive and easily controlled, jumping makes a big difference with him.

They're both different kinds of extremely precise masterpiece of sidescrolling controls.

Weak bait,
but you write well.

You should play some Contra, I heared it is easier.

>>2644861
REKT

yeah I agree super Mario bros 1+lost levels sucks. it's on my list of worst games with worst game play mechanics ever created. very despicable game. straight from hell. rip

super mario bros is a poopy ghame

>2015
>discovering mario

>>2644765
>arcade
>quarter robber
stopped reading there, only bad games are quarter munchers

for example, as much as I love Sega, it's literally impossible to 1CC Rail Chase 1 or 2 due to unavoidable damage

that being said, it's easy to confuse games as quarter munchers, like seems to be the perception with After Burner and Galaxy Force II (the former semi-deserves its status and directly gives you more lives the more money you feed the machine but is still designed around the player being actually able to dodge the shit that comes at him; the latter was designed without continuing in mind at all, something which was added to the international release)


oh, I know this is a bait thread, I just wanted to type the above block of text, it's been on my mind for a while

>>2644993
Games from the early 70s were often 2-player namely because you didn't need to code/build enemy logic on the slow, primitive hardware.

By the late 70s, constraints lessened and you could easily make something for the player to face against that wasn't just another person, which led to more money being put in, since convincing one person to play a game is easier than convincing two at once.

>>2646524

You do realize what you're doing by acknowledging this was bait and then giving it a serious response, right?

>>2645872
> damage control by 30+ year old
kek

>>2646534
He's hedging his bets. He has to make an argument in case the OP isn't a troll and if he is a troll, then he wins by calling him out as a troll. The part I don't understand is how he thinks this doesn't make him look like an even bigger idiot than if hadn't called troll in the first place.

>>2646534
heh, I'm surprised people are so concerned with this being bait or not. I gave legitimate points that only a couple of people bothered to give decent counterarguments to.

But keep screaming bait at everything because you don't agree. It's a mark of intelligence and maturity.

>>2646640

Ignorance is bliss for you, I guess.