I.M.Gibbon
Wario Fan Supreme
Yeah, agreed. The GBA had 240 × 160 pixel resolution, not... whatever size that is up there. Any sprite looks grotesque when you blow it up to 5x its intended size.
Is Wario Land 4 basically a 'perfect game'?
- Thread starter CM30
- Start date
Remarkably well crafted is how I would describe Land 4, no game is perfect and I do still prefer Land 3 by a bit, but there are just games that do what they set out to do so well that whatever small flaws it might have don't affect the experience in the least.
I am saying that because while I feel a bit fanboyish for saying it like that, I am legitimately struggling to think of something in Land 4 that I find objectionable, even if I still wouldn't call any game perfect.
I am saying that because while I feel a bit fanboyish for saying it like that, I am legitimately struggling to think of something in Land 4 that I find objectionable, even if I still wouldn't call any game perfect.
I would recall one of our members, Yui-Chan's reviews on the game. Your comment reminded me of it. And of course, I agree with you, the game does what it promises at its best, and it sure has flaws, but not game breaking flaws, which, as you said, are forgettable.
My personal definition is this: If the only complaints you can think of are nitpicks, then it's a masterpiece.
For example, Yoshi's Island, DKC Tropical Freeze, Wario Land 4, Paper Mario 2, Mario Odyssey, Breath of the Wild, etc., those are all masterpieces to me.
With Tropical Freeze for example, the only complaint I can think of is that the bonus rooms could use a bit more variety... but it's not something that actually hampers my enjoyment of the game.
If... (or should I say when? I hope so.) ...they make a sequel they could add more objectives, like to kill all enemies or collect 200 of 1000 tiny thingies or reach the goal without getting hurt or get to the goal WITHOUT collecting any banyanyers or whatever.
And when they do, that'll make it even better. But again, it's not something that sours my experience.
For example, Yoshi's Island, DKC Tropical Freeze, Wario Land 4, Paper Mario 2, Mario Odyssey, Breath of the Wild, etc., those are all masterpieces to me.
With Tropical Freeze for example, the only complaint I can think of is that the bonus rooms could use a bit more variety... but it's not something that actually hampers my enjoyment of the game.
If... (or should I say when? I hope so.) ...they make a sequel they could add more objectives, like to kill all enemies or collect 200 of 1000 tiny thingies or reach the goal without getting hurt or get to the goal WITHOUT collecting any banyanyers or whatever.
And when they do, that'll make it even better. But again, it's not something that sours my experience.
Eh, I'm not sure about this. I think with a masterpiece, it's a matter of the game either:
1. Literally having no real flaws, perhaps because it does a limited concept perfectly (I suspect Tetris might be this)
2. Being so amazing that even the biggest flaws can be completely ignored.
Because let's face it, there are tons of classics with what would be seen as objective flaws in their design. Zelda Breath of the Wild had a lack of enemy variety, uninteresting Divine Beast dungeons, less interesting bosses and a lack of areas not on the surface to explore. Mario Odyssey has quite a few lazily done missions that copy and paste old ideas over and over (like the dog quests, trace walking, etc). Tropical Freeze has the aforementioned lacking bonus rooms. Paper Mario 2 has tons of things that would be considered padding now, like chasing General White, much of chapter 4 in general, etc.
But they're masterpieces because of their brilliance regardless of said flaws. Because people spend hundreds or thousands of hours playing them despite anything that might do wrong on an objective level.
I guess what I'm saying isn't that flaws don't exist in masterpieces, it's that they're so good people are willing to overlook all of them regardless of how much they 'should' affect the quality of the experience.
Well yeah, like I said, that's my personal definition and those examples are personal examples. So they are subjective.
What one person might call a legit flaw, I might call nitpicking.
Like with the General White quest. To quote a comment I wrote a while ago:
So yes, it IS annoying but in a funny way. So I forgive it.
And regarding chapter 4:
Besides that, if you made the path itself shorter, it would feel suspicious that the chapter is so short the first time you go to creepy steeple and the fake end of chapter might not be that unexpected.
Later on I had the idea that after you enter the Parrot's room, it could open up a shortcut with a warp pipe that leads to the beginning of Twilight Trail, so you could skip the last bit of backtracking, which wouldn't hurt the story too much.
Though that's just something they could add in a remake/remastered version but it's not something I personally NEED to consider the game a masterpiece.
Regarding the repeating Odyssey missions, what should be the alternative? Well, it's either making a ton of unique missions, which would mean a lot more work, time, and budget, OR to cut out those moons entirely.
I mean think about it. The game has almost 900 seperate moons. They couldn't make them ALL unique.
So I'd rather play a few more similar missions than get less content or have to play like 100 bucks for a game. What do you think I am? Australian?
And it's not like they use stuff like the trace walking in every single world or anything. Heck, a ton of players who don't go for 100% might not ever even FIND the other trace walking spots. Conversely, if they DID make every moon unique, that would mean Nintendo made a ton of content that a ton of players don't even ever see. And that applies to Breath of the Wild as well.
So whether it's Odyssey's similar moons, Breath of the Wild's similar puzzles/overworld content, or Tropical Freeze's bonus rooms, my response is basically the same: They already made SO MUCH awesome and unique content, that asking for more just feels whiney, spoiled
or entitled.Now, if we were talking about a game like... well, any recent game with "NEW" in the title, then it's VERY appropriate to ask for more original content, since they already have close to no original content to begin with. (Look at 3D Land's "special worlds" for example. It sucks that it's all recycled because the first half already felt very recycled.)
But Mayro, Zeld, and Dong? I don't think we can expect THAT much from them.
Especially since Mayro and Zeld are doing the non-linear gameplay thing for the first time in what feels like forever.
For Odyssey 2 and BotW2 we can expect more, sure.
And Dong is already so full of original content that you could cut out ALL of the bonus rooms and you'd still be left with a HUGELY gratifying experience, imho.
So yeah, is there even an objective masterpiece?
Even if it's something as simple and great as Tetris?
Who knows, man. Who knows.
Agreed. But this thread was about the question whether it is a perfect game, right? Yoshi's Island (GBA, I haven't played the other versions enough) is a masterpiece, but it has got multiple flaws, and is thus not perfect.
That begs the question, what IS a perfect game?
Like, let's say your definition is that a perfect game is one without flaws.
Ok, but what counts as a flaw?
Does the game not being "fun" enough count as a flaw? Or not exciting enough? Or not creative enough?
But how do you measure fun? Or excitement? Or creativity?
When there's a bug, that's an obvious flaw. When there's a broken game mechanic, that's also an obvious flaw.
But what if the game just doesn't hold your attention as much? Is that a flaw? How do you measure that?
Where's the line between a game being exciting enough that it DOESN'T count as a flaw, and one where it DOES?
If there's one tiny thing in a game that mildly annoys you once, does that count as a flaw? Does that mean the game is not perfect anymore?
And what if that thing doesn't annoy me?
So we're back to the issue of subjective vs objective.
If you're thinking, "This sprite could've been a little bit more pretty." Is that a flaw?
Like, how do you know when you've reached perfection?
There's always SOMETHING that someone can nag about, even if you were talking about literally god's work.
I love certain types of 'flaws' in my entertainment. Most of my favourite games have plenty; be it graphical flaws, audio flaws, gameplay, etc.
Sometimes what we call "flaws" I prefer to see as quirks. They can really add distinct character; like old silent films... I would never want to watch an old Keystone or Chaplin comedy in high definition, without the blotches, blemishes, and choppy editing. The same goes for certain old records vs. CD/digital remasters.
I don't think we should lower the bar, but striving to make everything ultra-clean doesn't mean you'll enjoy yourself or the product more. Art should never be tamed.
Sometimes what we call "flaws" I prefer to see as quirks. They can really add distinct character; like old silent films... I would never want to watch an old Keystone or Chaplin comedy in high definition, without the blotches, blemishes, and choppy editing. The same goes for certain old records vs. CD/digital remasters.
I don't think we should lower the bar, but striving to make everything ultra-clean doesn't mean you'll enjoy yourself or the product more. Art should never be tamed.
Last edited:
A game that has a ton of graphical flaws but I still love it anyway is the first Wario Ware. A ton of sprites look weird, wonky, have inconsistent colors, look like they were just a colored-in doodle, are animated strangely, etc.
But there's a certain charm to it.
That's also the reason why many people prefer vinyl over CD's, or VHS cassettes over DVD's (I know I do) And this is also true for games. Like @ShyGuyXXL said, the first WarioWare has a cheap, somewhat amaturistic feeling to its graphical design, but that's exactly why I like it so much.
WarioWare in general is meant to look like it's by a bunch of amateurs, probably because in universe it actually is. It looks exactly like something Wario and friends would make, and that's really part of the whole appeal.
That's a good point, especially in the visual department. Obviously a crossover will look inconsistent, but that helps portray the 'worlds collide' feel of the whole setup. And it's certainly possible in some cases that the rough look of a game can give it more charm, I mean, look at Mario 64 and other games of the N64 era. Part of the reason they're so intriguing for many people today is because the developers had very little in the way of resources to work with and had to make the best of the limited tech available. So there's a very 'otherworldly' feel to them in general.
So I guess you're right, not every game should be ultra clean or what not.
At the same time though, you should also keep in mind that many flaws were not like this. The Wind Waker's issues were simply because it was rushed, and to be honest, the game probably would have been better had it been delayed a bit and said flaws ironed out. Same goes with some issues in Breath of the Wild. It's a great game, but let's face it; more enemy variety would never have been a bad thing.
A little late to this conversation, but my first exposure to the WL4 sprites were from flashes on Newgrounds actually. I always found those sprites to be unusually grotesque, regardless of the GBA's resolution. It looks like there was an intentional attempt to make the sprite not look simple like usual Mario designs but more detailed and unique.
The attention to detail in this game is top notch. And I'd say that where the series shines the most.
I think remaking a game is the same as repainting any work of art; it won't be the same beast. Granted, we have to remember that games are interactive entertainment, and not gallery exhibits. Yet, if someone tried to remake WL4 and 'improve' it, they'd likely damage the game's aesthetics in the process.
When it comes to flawed games I adore, the two biggest franchises that inspired me was the Donkey Kong Land trilogy and ClayFighter games. They contained very muddy, murky graphics, and unrefined mechanics. They were cutting-edge in the 90's, but they've aged poorly, and are now considered ugly by many (even hideous!)
This makes me sad, as I would never wish to see them remade in ultra-shiny 2.5D or the like, because that simply does not capture the visual nature or rough, unrefined character of these games. Alas, with the way most developers are now, they wouldn't dare adapt this gritty, grotty approach today. It's like a reckless abandon for cleanliness.
When it comes to flawed games I adore, the two biggest franchises that inspired me was the Donkey Kong Land trilogy and ClayFighter games. They contained very muddy, murky graphics, and unrefined mechanics. They were cutting-edge in the 90's, but they've aged poorly, and are now considered ugly by many (even hideous!)
This makes me sad, as I would never wish to see them remade in ultra-shiny 2.5D or the like, because that simply does not capture the visual nature or rough, unrefined character of these games. Alas, with the way most developers are now, they wouldn't dare adapt this gritty, grotty approach today. It's like a reckless abandon for cleanliness.
Last edited:
TBH I can't say that the graphics of the DKL games are bad for their time. Except for maybe DKL 1 they are in my opinion really well-made. They may look bad when compared with the Country games, but keep in mind that the Game Boy is far less sophisticated than the Super Nintendo, and that the Land games are not ment to be exact remakes of the DKC games.
Of course, JAWF! I said they were cutting edge in the 90's, but today I hear a lot of people call them ugly. I didn't own a Super Nintendo in the 90's, I owned a Mega Drive and Game Boy. I've been defending the DKL games since they released, because people forever dismiss them as mere GB ports, and never rate them by their own merits. It's always bothered me, as they gave me countless hours of joy and inspiration. Some of the biggest, most adventurous platformers the GB ever had.
The graphics are astounding, they've just aged. Travel back to 1995; DKL was revered as the biggest technical achievement for GB. It revived interest in the aging system.
Some folks complained the graphics made it too hard to see, so Rare stripped all the background detail out of DKL2, which annoyed many (including me, as I never had any game-breaking issues with detailed environments). It stinks because that was Rare's trademark. Look at Monster Max which Rare released the year before in 1994... It's the most detailed and creative puzzle-adventure on Game Boy. A true masterpiece. (Though hardly anyone knows about it. Shhhh...)
I too like the backgrounds in the DKL games but I must say, playing the waterfall levels of DKL 3 on the original Game Boy can be a pain in the rear because they are maybe a bit too detailed for the small, relatively slow-reacting black and white screen of the Game Boy. It's a good thing that they have SNES compactibility via the Super Game Boy.