/vr/ - Retro Games

My guess is he was pissed at the shitty CG render they used for US box arts. I mean, compare it with the Jap art and you'll see why.

you did get all the s-ranks, right?

Is this Treasure's magnum opus?

>>4520027
Yeah I just think you still gotta put some thought & reflexes into what you're doing if you want 100% completion. That it's not quite as simple as beating a Kirby or Starfy game.
>Yeah I agree, back in the day I used to prefer 60 hour juggernaut of a videogame ala Donkey Kong 64 but as an old man I'm definitely more inclined for a shorter, more focused experience.
Exactly my point in the OP about the 'next generation of platformers' thing. I think back then more linear and traditional platformers seemed very dated and people preferred the explorey stuff, whether 3D like Banjo or 2D like Symphony of the Night. I might be wrong but it seems like even stuff that's on a whole other level from Chameleon Twist, like Mischief Makers (one of my favorite games of all time) wasn't too well received back in the day. That game's considered a classic now, but it feels like it's mostly thanks to the online Treasure fanbase.

Back in the 90s video game mags didn't care for it much; even the Nintendo Power review didn't go beyond the 6/10 range. And I know back then a 6/10 didn't actual mean "garbage game" the way it does now but it definitely didn't mean "platforming classic" either. Yet in the 2000s onwards the positive reviews started rushing in: https://www.gamerankings.com/n64/197950-mischief-makers/articles.html

I think it's because people realized that collectathons and "metroidvanias" aren't necessarily the "next generation" and that linear vs explorey is two different types of games.

>>4505814
Your comment is correct, but your image is wrong.

Why is this game so overrated, even by Treasure standards of overly exaggerated praise?

It's okay.

Pic related is Treasure's platforming magnum opus.