MegaMan games were never good, you guys just never played a decent platformer before

I love Shatterhand too OP but that doesn't mean MegaMan is bad

You literally can't into grammar.

This is actually true. Classic megaman sucks ass. X and even the handheld RPG games were better.

BN > SF > ZX > Zero > X > Legends > Classic

Attached: 2ed.gif (300x300, 2.13M)

What's a decent platformer then, go on.

>Best megaman games aren't platformers
odd, but good taste

if he just said "unbelievable" the sentence would've been fine

>SF > ZX > Zero
YIKES

What's a decent platformer, then?

Super Mario Galaxy 1 and 2.

For 2D, I'd say Castlevania games would be the best.

This.

They kept updating the games until 4. 5 and 6 were bland as hell and 7 didn't add anything good to the series. 8 gave you a dumbass soccerball.

The Gameboy MM5 is the MegaMan 5 we should have gotten on console.

>Bad bosses
>Boring subweapons
>Fixed jump
>Stairs

>But all the janky movement just makes it better!
Good lord.

Attached: 1423146883359.gif (260x199, 113K)

>Galaxy
>Decent platformer
Choose one.

Of it works don’t fix it. It was a good formula and just having more stages was more than enough.
Not every game needs to be new, Miyamoto.

>2D Castlevania
>Bad
>When literally all of that was planned for the sake of giving a challenge

Sorry 2D Castlevania doesn't have your bing bing wahoo wall jumps and combos, zoomer

i didnt grow up on retro but megaman 1 was frustrating but satisfying.

You’re just bad at the game because you refuse to learn the rules.

It was designed bad on purpose isn't a compelling argument lmao.

>I CAN'T DOUBLE JUMP AND CONTROL MY TRAJECTORY IN MID AIR REEEEEEEEE

That's like saying PacMan is a shit game because he can't hop over walls.

>bing bing wahoo
>wall jump
>muh ZOOMERS
>when we're talking about NES MEGA MAN, a franchise well on the way to be FORTY years old
What special brand of retard are you?

The ruleset is far too limiting, and the game does not compensate for that in any other areas.
Don't act from the assumption that the system is already good, SHOW that it is.

Attached: 1425909171560.jpg (395x346, 23K)

go back to crying how you can't spam your muh 26 gorillion image anymore

The entire game is designed around the limitations of your character, you’re given exactly what you need to make the game challenging and doable. You can say you don’t like it but to act like it’s poorly designed is just an excuse. You know the rules are there because once you beat Castlevania for the first time the game is a lot easier and faster to beat because you’re familiar with it. You could try and chalk this up to the game being trial and error but everything is clearly telegraphed to you, you just have to think how to work around it with your toolset.

>why didn't the games change
but they did.
with the x series.
and the zero series.
and so on.
except we also got our cake and ate it too by having each different game style have its own series.

Zero, MM&B(GBA version), Battle Network, Legends 2 , and two X games came out within the span of three years.

All completely different and adding something new to the tried and true formula.

Attached: 1550362878939.jpg (302x399, 27K)

I was responding to the person talking shit about nes castlevania, dipshit. Clean the jizz out of your ears.

>It's another "Game series is copy-paste because it uses the same story" episode.

Each Megaman hame offered new abilities and each robot master stage had themed elements that are unique to that level and not repeated across the entire series.

Castlevania 1 is one of the greatest platformers to get good at. It's especially good if you want a challenging, but short game to play through every now and then.
>b-but the knockback
This, and every other argument against the game is not even really a problem, once you run through the game a few times. You guys are letting an imaginary problem hold you back from experiencing a great game. Your loss.

None of those are things I disagree with. The games are challenging and fair and so on and so forth but the limitations placed upon the character themselves are the problem fo rme, because they're not what I'm looking for in a platformer. For heavens' sake, the simple fact that one of the games has fixed jump angles and the other doesn't should already be enough to show that comparing them to each other is like comparing apples to oranges. Castlevania is challenging, Castlevania is fair, most importantly, Castlevania is good. AND Castlevania is also stiff as hell, by design.

Mega Man also offers a similar "you have a set number of tools at hand, USE THEM" experience, the recent 11 a is perfect example of this, but also with a lot more fluidity. Which, yes, probably makes the game a lot easier compared to Classicvania, but is similarly something the game is built for.

Attached: 1477790280211.jpg (666x666, 93K)

It's nothing like that, Pac-Man isn't a fucking platformer so why would anyone expect that? Castlevania feels very sluggish even comparing it to other games from the same time frame. It was certainly better than a lot of the shovelware discount bin garbage that found its way to the NES. I do think they got progressively better with how they handled the classic Castlevania games though, IV is one of my favorites.

Why is it so bad for a series to be consistent with itself?

The X games were fantastic. Them and Castlevania are top tier. Name better platformers. And I swear to god if you name mario or some other terrible shit.

And that's also fair. Even if the game is good and fair, people have their own tastes in terms of their freedom in platformers.

Just so long as you're not calling the game shit because it's not to your tastes, we're good.

Out of curiosity though, you seem to have a lot more experience with Classicvania than I do, in case you've also given Mega Man a try, how would you rank Castlevania bosses compared to MM Robot Masters?

Attached: 1398801939995.jpg (600x450, 156K)

Not him, but I happen to be the authority on this subject, because I've beaten all 11 classic Mega Man games, every Mega Man X game, and about 10 Castlevania games.

To give a short explanation, Castlevania has low lows (think of all the shitty, easily defeated bosses in SotN) and high highs. Mega Man mostly has mid to high quality bosses.

As an earlier user said, Castlevania is built on those limitations in order to give that tense feeling of slowly approaching each encounter and understanding what you'll be up against. Of the NES castlevania games, the original understood this the most. 3 is still great.

What said. Castlevania bosses are far more varied and unique since they are not restricted by needing to be a specific size as Robot Masters do, but that also means you can get some great bosses and also shitty bosses. I'd say it depends on the game.

Simon's Quest, for example, is a shitshow boss wise.

I didn't play a Mega Man game until I was 15 and I liked them.

To add to this, Megaman and Castlevania in their NES days had one similarity in that having or lacking sub weapons can make bosses easier or harder.

Castlevania's first boss, the giant bat, flies just out of reach of your whip that requires you to time your jumps and attacks. He's a cakewalk but you can't immediately spam the whip on him to death. But if you have the Axe, you can properly hit that fucker and wreck his shit without as much difficulty.

I wouldn't even consider the bosses in Simon's Quest to be bosses. They're basically just larger than average bullet sponge regular enemies.

And Death. Who you can just walk past anyway.

Keeping an engine relatively the same is perfectly acceptable

MegaMan is better in may opinion. The Wily bosses are closer to Castlevania bosses since they can be their own sizes and have their own gameplay attached to them while the Robot Masters are unique to MegaMan

You can walk past both Death and Carmilla. The only one you can't skip is Dracula himself.

You're not even worth responding to.

Come back when you're born before 1995.

Yeah if we include the Wily Fortress bosses it's more in Mega Man's favor. That's where you get to see all the impressive bosses the games can have.

There's got to be a better way to start a MM thread than with such completely retarded bait as this.

Not anymore, apparently.

There have been no bad "classic" Mega Man games. Even the worst is still an enjoyable experience.

Attached: mmreactions.png (1310x428, 460K)

8 is fucking terrible and you damn well know it.

How can people not find any kind of enjoyment in X6?
Note that I used the word "enjoyment" and I never implied it is an above average game

X6 has the best villain in the X series.

Nah. It's different, but it's still not bad.

I just did an X only ultimate armor run. I had fun that way.

Is it wrong that I find something good in the the "bad" MM games? I'm talking shit like 8, &B as well as X6. Not X7, fuck that game
Simon's Quest is a shitshow in and out of itself

You were never good.

>t. retard

did Yea Forums like megaman 11?

i did. it's in my top 3.

It's one of my favorites, along with 9 and 2.

While I can't speak for Yea Forums, I think the majority liked the robot masters and the weapons + stages, but hated the Wily stages + music.

I didn't play yet ;_;

It's my favorite of the classic series personally.

Attached: 11.jpg (1280x720, 325K)

Does anyone in this thread even like video games.

All I see is people posting why these games are shit, why their favorite games are not shit, and getting replies telling them their favorite games are shit.

Attached: A1 (19).jpg (900x600, 88K)

I don't like that I'm stuck on the first Wily boss (Yellow Devil)

They're good games. You just haven't taken enough time to adjust to them

The platformer games suck hard ass, but legends and the battle network games are amazing

>Castlevania
it's got some of the worst platforming ever. It's a good action game, but terrible platformer

the big twist is Yea Forums is a video game