Is Wario Land 4 basically a 'perfect game'?

CM30

CM30

Diamond City Mayor
Diamond City Leader
Coins
216,183
User Name Style Change
Postbit Highlight (Pre-Defined)
Gold Necklace
Gold Earrings
User Title Style Change
In a somewhat literal sense?

I mean, it's got good graphics and music for the system. It's got great level design/game design in general. Every single part of the game has been made specifically to fit the theme and doesn't reuse resources. There's not a single bad song or graphics tileset in general...

It's basically a perfect platformer, at least for the GBA.

Anyone agree?
 
Perhaps flawless. It doesn't have any obvious mistakes or things missing. That doesn't mean it couldn't be better, though, so I wouldn't consider it perfect.
 
The only thing about the whole game that is not so good are the minigames, and the fact that the game is too short. But everything else is just perfect.
I wish that WarioWare: Mega Microgame$ had this quality.
 
I think it is one of the greatest platformers ever made. My one problem with it is the "Normal" game mode. In my opinion, this mode should have been called "Easy" instead. "Hard" mode is actually a perfect version of the game because the jewel pieces are actually hidden decently.

Other than that, everything about the game, from its spritework to its level design, is absolutely incredible. Nintendo R&D1 did a great job with it.
 
wariolandgoldpiramid said:
that's the point. they went for quality over quantity. They may be only 18 levels, but each of theme has unique themes and mechanics.
It's like most of the Mario Platformers where nearly every level is the same thing...
Click to expand...
True. I'd rather have a short game that's fun while it lasts than a long game that's a misery to go through.
 
Just a Wario fan said:
The only thing about the whole game that is not so good are the minigames, and the fact that the game is too short. But everything else is just perfect.
I wish that WarioWare: Mega Microgame$ had this quality.
Click to expand...
Do you think the mini games were not perfect or do you think there were too few of them?
 
Wario Land 4 is excellent, don't get me wrong. But as others have said, it's a bit on the short side. Another issue I have with the game is the lack of treasure-hunting in the traditional sense. Money exists to buy boss items, and treasure is only collected by beating the bosses quickly. In other Wario games, you find treasure through exploration and puzzle-solving, which to me is a far more rewarding experience.

I feel like Wario Land II gave me more content for my money, with way more levels, more to collectibles, and more stuff to do in general. Wario Land 4 is a mighty fine game, though, and I still enjoy replaying it after all these years.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: 607
True, I guess it's a bit short in some sense and I see your point about the lack of puzzle solving. On the other hand... a short game isn't always a bad thing. Lot of longer games feel 'padded', like they put in content just to add hours of 'gameplay' for minimal effort.

Look at many Mario or Zelda games for example. Or every open world sandbox game ever. Tons of great parts, but also tons of boring filler. Does a game's length matter more or that all its content is equally good?
 
CM30 said:
True, I guess it's a bit short in some sense and I see your point about the lack of puzzle solving. On the other hand... a short game isn't always a bad thing. Lot of longer games feel 'padded', like they put in content just to add hours of 'gameplay' for minimal effort.
Click to expand...

Oh, I agree that long and good aren't synonymous. Its length isn't even my main complaint. The thing I missed most was finding hidden treasures in the levels themselves, something of a Wario series staple.

Again, though, Wario Land 4 ranks pretty high up there for me. It's not at the top of my list like Wario Land II is, but it's either second or third place overall. What it lacked in treasure-hunting, it kinda makes up for in the crown challenges; Getting all gold crowns for each stage gives the game some considerable replay value that you don't get from playing it straight through, and I can definitely appreciate its inclusion.

Side-note, the original Wario Land 4 website (with the talking Wario guiding you through Greedville) was awesome. One of the best official promotions for any Nintendo game, in my opinion.
 
It also perfectly balances Wario's bada$$ery and wonkiness. It's perfect in terms of his character for sure. Is it the perfect game? I dunno, I felt it was kinda short. I like Wario Land 3 for its replayability factor and length among other things.
 
The complaint that I hear the most about it is that it's too short.
But if the only thing that bugs you after playing a game is that you want more of it then it is by definition flawless.
We shouldn't rate games based on their length.
There's no precedent of how long a game should be. Making a game longer doesn't guarantee that it'll be good.
Portal is a really short game but it's great all the way through.
Some games are only as long as they need to be.
We don't critique movies or books based on their lengths, do we? We only criticise them when they can't keep our attention for as long as they want.
So as long as you have fun while playing it, it really shouldn't matter how long a game is.
 
Last edited:
ShyGuyXXL said:
The complaint that I hear the most about it is that it's too short.
But if the only thing that bugs you after playing a game is that you want more of it then it is by definition flawless.
We shouldn't rate games based on their length.
There's no precedent of how long a game should be. Making a game longer doesn't guarantee that it'll be good.
Portal is a really short game but it's great all the way through.
Some games are only as long as they need to be.
We don't critice movies or books based on their lengths, do we? We only criticise them when they can't keep our attention for as long as they want.
So as long as you have fun while playing it, it really shouldn't matter how long a game is.
Click to expand...
Nailed it.
 
For years I've felt that Nintendo R&D1 created Wario Land 4 knowing it would be their last. They'd made a total of five platform adventure games for their Game Boy/Virtual Boy systems with their flagship Wario character, all with high standards of quality and innovation during their respective years of release (1994-2001).
Wario Land 4 was treated in the same way they treated Super Metroid - it was a milestone effort, and it marked the end of an era for both franchises.

ShyGuyXXL said:
The complaint that I hear the most about it is that it's too short.
But if the only thing that bugs you after playing a game is that you want more of it then it is by definition flawless.
We shouldn't rate games based on their length.
There's no precedent of how long a game should be. Making a game longer doesn't guarantee that it'll be good.
Portal is a really short game but it's great all the way through.
Some games are only as long as they need to be.
We don't critice movies or books based on their lengths, do we? We only criticise them when they can't keep our attention for as long as they want.
So as long as you have fun while playing it, it really shouldn't matter how long a game is.
Click to expand...

I agree with this statement, however, the game should also provide a lasting challenge or strong replay factor/value for money. This is where Wario Land 4 totally excels, while the following game, Wario World, completely and utterly failed.
 
Last edited:
  • Wow
Reactions: 607
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top