This Statement Nails What Was Great About The Super Nintendo's Best Games

The above quote, from Mark MacDonald, of the Tokyo-based game localisation company 8-4, sums up what felt so special about the best games on the SNES. It rings true for all-time greats such as Super Mario Word and The Legend of Zelda: A Link To The Past, which emerged within a year of the system's release with an amount of polish generally unseen on a system's early games.

Technically they were sequels, but they still feel like they skipped a game, the way we might feel today if we got Halo 3 next after Halo 1.

MacDonald made his assessment in the midst of two lengthy multi-hour podcasts that celebrate the Super Nintendo hardware and its best games. Listen to both! Part 1 [Part 2

Zelda screencap via GameFAQs, snapped by The Mighty Kelp


Comments

    I do miss the polish of the good old days.
    I cant remember the last game i played a game that actually felt finished, maybe Portal.

      Red Dead Redemption?

        Gotta agree with this. GTA IV and Red Dead Redemption were definitely the last two 'completely finished' games I played, in terms of feeling 'fully polished'. Goes miles towards Rockstars credibility. Even Max Payne 3 has that going for it...

          Hmmm I disagree. They may be great games but they sure had some odd bugs in them.

      Most games from Nintendo now still have that level of polish and finish.
      They certainly don't feel rushed or like anything is missing.

      Metal Gear Solid 4?
      Starcraft 2?
      Half Life 2?

        As much as i enjoyed RDR it had many issues, in fact any game running on rockstars engine seem to be rife with them. GTA4 being the worst of the lot.
        havent played a metal gear game since 2
        hate star craft (but from what i've been told by mates its got plenty of issues)
        and Half life 2 isnt finished so i refuse to say its polished.

    But...the game he references are basically sequels aren't they? Super Mario World was the follow on from Super Mario 3, it had the basic core mechanics of the previous but improved on them in every way it could to make a newer advanced version of the game. Don't forget the hardware gap between SMB3 and SMW, I'm sure you'll see the same comparisons between Halo 1 and 3, considering there is a whole console generation between them.

    Also, whoever made the graphic should work on their leading, it hurts my eyes.

      He is still saying they're sequels. I think what he's going for is something like the difference between them and their predecessors was a much larger gap than what you see between today's sequels, which are much more incremental.

      It is a bit of a dog's breakfast of a paragraph. Although I guess you still went with the hardware gap and Halo 1 vs 3 thing... that's kind of the point there, back then the difference between subsequent titles would have been like the difference between Halo 1 and 3. A game like 2 never would have existed.

        I thought he meant, it's like there was a LttP 1 and it was a popular game, so Nintendo went and made a LttP 2, and really pulled something nice together since it was a sequel and they already had a lot of art and music and gameplay concepts downpat - except that this imaginary "LttP 2" was released as LttP, there was no previous game to encourage a more polished product.

Join the discussion!