EVO: Search for Eden RetroActive Review

EVO pic

EVO: Search for Eden

Original Release Date: 1992

While Spore may be the most well known game to focus on the evolutionary process, it wasn’t the first, and one of the lesser known games that did it earlier was EVO: Search for Eden. It has a small following, but has largely faded into obscurity over the years. Has this loss in visibility been justified, or is EVO an underappreciated gem?

EVO has the player assume the role of an early life form, a fish, and guides them through the process of evolution, becoming stronger and eventually gaining sentience and entering the Garden of Eden. The player gains points by defeating the different creatures you encounter, and these points can be used to evolve your creature.

One thing EVO does well is its creativity. Like Spore, the amount of possible creature designs is pretty large, albeit much more limited than in Spore. The game also makes each new stage of life distinct and memorable, with unique environments and enemies.

Unfortunately, it shares some bad similarities with Spore. Like in Spore, there’s really not that much choice involved. While you can customize your creature in different ways, you’re not really given a choice as to how your creature can evolve. Rather than giving the player the freedom to decide what kind of animal they want to end up as, the game forces you to follow the path that evolution took in real life. This makes the game feel less like you’re going on a journey and more like you’re ticking off marks on a checklist, which was a problem Spore also had.

Another problem with EVO is that there really isn’t that much to do. While Spore had many problems, there was still a lot of interesting things the player could do, particularly in the space stage. In EVO, on the other hand, all you do throughout most of the game is just fight other creatures in 2D, side scrolling levels. That’s pretty much it, and there’s not a lot of variety to the gameplay.

This is compounded by the fact that the gameplay itself is incredibly sluggish and unmemorable. The combat in particular is very weak, and unfortunately takes up a large percentage of the game. While it’s concept is pretty unique, the actual gameplay is very similar to every other platformer for the SNES. And in that regard, EVO is by far the weakest platformer I’ve played for the SNES so far.

In the end, EVO is indeed like a 16 bit predecessor to Spore. Both are rather impressive as creativity tools and as an example of what this interactive medium is capable of. But as an actual game, both fall short in many areas.

How well it holds up        2/4

Personal enjoyment        3/5

Overall quality                 6/10

Not Recommended

For further information about the game:


Harvest Moon RetroActive Review

Harvest Moon pic

Harvest Moon

Original Release Date: 1996

Harvest Moon is a series that I’ve heard of over the years, but never actually played until now. Some say it’s a charming, under appreciated franchise, others say that it’s a series of games that feel more like work than actual games. Which side is correct, and how does the original hold up?

Harvest Moon is a game where you take control of a younger boy who is tasked with maintaining a farm that has fallen into disrepair. You have to grow food, feed and care for the livestock, and keep everything running smoothly. Besides taking care of the farm, you can also visit a town where you can meet other people, gain advice, and buy new equipment.

Some say that Harvest Moon is a game that makes activities that would normally feel like work into something fun. While I can see the charms of the game, based on my experience with the game, I would have to disagree.

There’s nothing really wrong with the game, as the mechanics are well designed, it’s clearly been crafted with care, and there is something kind of neat about watching your farm come to life. But when it comes to the daily activities that you have to do to maintain and raise the farm, it’s just kind of boring. You have to pick up weeds, clear out rocks, plant seeds, water them daily, pick up packages at the mailbox, buy new equipment, take care of the various animals under your care, repair the fence, and many other things. These things aren’t really that exciting to do in real life, and they’re even less exciting when done in a game. Video games, among other things, are supposed to be a way to get away from the boring chores of life, not an avenue to recreate them.

Harvest Moon is not a bad game, and I fully concede that all of my criticisms of the game are purely subjective. I can see how some people could enjoy this game, and I’d recommend at least looking into it. But I personally didn’t really enjoy it, and I feel that this is one series of games that just isn’t for me.

How well it holds up        4/4

Personal enjoyment        2/5

Overall quality                 8/10

For further information about the game:



Axelay RetroActive Review

Axelay pic


Original Release Date: 1992

2D shooters are not a genre of games that I think are inherently bad, but a lot of the ones from the 8 bit and 16 bit era do things that seem designed to make the game into a chore rather than an enjoyable experience. Axelay is one of these games.

Before I rail against Axelay for the things it does wrong, I would like to mention the things that I thought were good. The graphics and art direction are very well put together, and hold up even to this day. The music is also very memorable, and compliments the overall atmosphere of the game very well. The levels are interesting and varied in design and aesthetic, and the bosses are pretty distinct. The weapons are pretty fun to use, and the controls are intuitive and responsive. It would be a great game if it weren’t for the problems I’m about to go over.

First of all, it commits the cardinal sin of making the player start the entire game all over again if they make too many mistakes. There’s no excuse or reason for this kind of design. It doesn’t make the game better, or more fun. All it does it make the game last longer and force the player to wade through content they’ve already mastered.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t stop there, either. Axelay also forces players to start levels all over again if they make too many mistakes, which is asinine for a number of reasons. First of all, most obstacles are one-hit kills, and the ones that aren’t will disable some of your weapons, which makes it almost guaranteed that you’ll die shortly thereafter. Secondly, there are so many obstacles on screen that it’s virtually impossible to avoid them all, so you’re guaranteed to die a lot.

A game that did this sort of thing much better was Star Fox. Star Fox was a challenging game, but it was fair. It never threw more at the player than they could handle, and gave them enough time to avoid and counter the various obstacles the game had. Star Fox also had a health meter, which allowed players to make a few mistakes without automatically losing all of their progress. And while you did have to start the level all over again when you died, it was always because the player messed up, not because the game set them up for failure.

And that’s Axelay’s main problem, it seems designed to make players fail rather than trying to make them succeed. A hard game is not a problem, but it has to be fair with its difficulty. When a player dies, it has to be because they messed up, not because the game threw more at them than they could handle, and the player should not be unfairly penalized for making a mistake.

Despite having some good elements, the way it’s designed, Axelay could only appeal to masochists who have an unhealthy tolerance for repetition and trial and error gameplay. For everyone else, this is one title I cannot recommend.

How well it holds up         2/4

Personal enjoyment         2/5

Overall quality                  6/10

Not Recommended

For further information about the game:


Demon’s Crest RetroActive Review

Demon's Crest pic

Demon’s Crest

Original Release: 1994

I didn’t like Ghosts ‘n Goblins, and while Super Ghouls and Ghosts was better, I still didn’t care for it very much. So it’s kind of ironic that I actually enjoyed a game starring one of the most annoying enemies from those games. But Demon’s Crest impressed me, and there are a lot of things to like about it.

The art direction is superb, and is very impressive for a 16 bit console, and it still holds up quite well. The music isn’t as impressive, but it’s still pretty decent, and compliments the atmosphere of the game perfectly. Each level is distinct and unique, with its own environment, enemies, and challenges.

The controls are very good, and give the player a variety of ways of solving problems and overcoming obstacles. The ability to hover is quite fun and unique, as well as useful, but the game avoids making it feel overpowered. The player can obtain different powers throughout the game, and each one has its own fun and unique playstyle, and further diversifies the ways players can overcome challenges.

The game is quite hard, with the thrilling and unique boss fights in particular being very brutal. However, it’s hard in an extremely fair manner, especially considering the cheap tactics many of its peers loved to employ. There is no lives system, the iteration times are completely reasonable, and you don’t die in one or two hits. All of this places it head and shoulders above many other 16 bit and 8 bit games in terms of being fair and well designed. In Demon’s Crest, all that matters is whether you can overcome the challenge currently placed before you, and in this kind of game, that’s all that should matter.

In many respects, Demon’s Crest is an absolutely fantastic game. But there is one severe flaw that undercuts the experience; it’s too short.

While it has an interesting overworld map and a few miscellaneous shops here and there, the game has only six levels, after which you fight the final boss, and the game ends. The game comes to a close so abruptly it’s rather jarring. Having played through the whole game, one gets the impression that Demon’s Crest was a game that wasn’t really finished. The story that tries to be rather big and grandiose, the empty inventory slots that are never filled, the haphazard way in which certain sections are linked together, and the overworld map all give the impression that Demon’s Crest was originally going to be a much bigger, much more ambitious game. However, something must have gone wrong, the developers weren’t able to fulfill all of their plans for the game, and were forced to stitch together what they had and release it as it was. A victim of over ambition, it would seem.

It’s a shame, because as incomplete as it feels, Demon’s Crest is still really good. It only makes me think with futile longing what the game would have been like had they been able to fully flesh it out.

As it stands, it’s a really great action platformer whose only shortcoming lies in its short length. That may be a problem some people might not be able to look past, but I think Demon’s Crest is still worth looking at.

How well it holds up        3/4

Personal enjoyment        4/5

Overall quality                 7/10


For further information about the game:



Contra 3 RetroActive Review

Contra 3 picture

Contra 3: The Alien Wars

Original Release Date: 1992

The SNES era had a lot of games that were either spiritual or actual successors to titles from the NES era. Some of these, such as Super Metroid and Super Mario World, took what their forebears did and took it to the next level, ironing out the problems and expanding on the things that worked. Others, such as Super Castlevania and Megaman X, updated and improved some elements, but unfortunately held onto archaic traditions of the NES games, resulting in a game that is good, that could have been better, but is at least trying.

And then there are some games, such as Super Punch-Out and Contra 3, that make no alterations to the established formula whatsoever. They simply give the old formula a 16 bit paint job and call it a day. Super Punch-Out was able to get away with this because the original formula was fine as it was, and didn’t need to be fixed. Unfortunately, this is not the case with the Contra series.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again, a lives system in any game has always been about making a game longer, not better. The original Contra’s live system was no exception, but it was able to get away with it because it had the Konami code and a properly paced difficulty curve across the various levels.

This is not the case with Contra 3, which does not have a saving grace like the Konami code, and whose difficulty feels more reminiscent of the sadistic Super C rather than the original Contra. While Contra started off fairly simple and got gradually harder, Super C and Contra 3 are aggravatingly difficult right out of the gate.

Having a high difficulty level wouldn’t be a deal breaker if it wasn’t for the lives system. Making the player redo a section if they make too many mistakes is fine. Making the player redo half of a level if they make too many mistakes is a bit draconic, but reasonable. Making the player redo the entire level if they make too many mistakes is rather asinine, but tolerable. Making the player start the entire game all over again if they make too many mistakes, however, is outrageous. What does forcing the player to wade through minutes of content they’ve already mastered do? If a player has already proven that they can overcome a certain challenge, they shouldn’t need to prove it again just because they had trouble with the following challenge. This ridiculous system where a player is expected to go through the same content over and over again until they’ve essentially memorized all of the hazards kills the pacing of the game, and makes playing through the game feel like a chore.

I’m not opposed to hard games. For example, I love Super Meat Boy, and that’s a really hard game, particularly for the dark world levels. But in Super Meat Boy, when you die, you’re never more than a few seconds away from the spot that gave you trouble, and the game doesn’t force you to replay any of the previous levels you’ve already beaten if you make too many mistakes. All that matters is whether or not you can overcome the current challenge presented to you, and ultimately that’s all that should matter.

It’s a shame, because there are a lot of good things about Contra 3, and the high difficulty isn’t even the problem. The problem is that the game retains the ridiculous iteration times and outrageous lives system of the 8 bit era, and those two faults alone drag down the whole experience. It has some merits, but I’d recommend using save states if you intend to play this title.

How well it holds up       2/4

Personal enjoyment       2/5

Overall quality                7/10

For further information about the game:



Super Punch-Out RetroActive Review

Super Punch Out pic

Super Punch-Out

Original Release Date: 1994

Some SNES sequels to NES titles have been outstanding. Others, not so much. Punch Out was an excellent game for the 8 bit console, but how well does its 16 bit successor measure up?

Overall, Super Punch-Out maintains the same elements that made the original so fun and engaging. The controls are satisfying, the fights memorable, and the added graphical enhancements that the SNES allows for are a welcome change.

However, it doesn’t quite have the same charm as the original, and doesn’t go as far as it could have in terms of elevating the formula. While this game was good, I find that I prefer the original a bit more.

Still, in terms of overall quality, Super Punch-Out is about on par with the original, and is worth checking out.

How well it holds up        4/4

Personal enjoyment        3/5

Overall quality                 8/10


For further information about the game:



Megaman X2 RetroActive Review

Megaman X2 picture

Megaman X2

Original Release Date: 1995

You know, I’m starting to see why Megaman has faded into obscurity over the years, and that’s because he’s a one trick pony. Beat the robot masters, get their powers, fight the main bad guy, rinse and repeat. There are only so many ways you can do the same thing over and over again before it starts to get stale. But while Mario managed to keep his formula fresh and engaging over the years (at least up until the Galaxy games, at which point they officially ran out of ideas), Megaman has begun to feel increasingly repetitive by the SNES era.

Megaman 1 was a decent game, and established the basic formula all of the future games would follow. Megaman 2 fixed what was wrong with the first game, expanded upon what it did right, and took it to the next level, and was a truly stellar sequel.

Then we had Megaman 3 and 4. These were two sequels that tried, and ultimately failed, to recreate what made Megaman 2 so good and so fun, but they were at least trying, added innovations of their own, and were pretty good in their own right.

Then we had Megaman 5 and 6. It was at this point that it feels like the developers just gave up, and decided to drive the formula into the ground with copy and paste sequels. Sequels that added virtually nothing new to the table, and just felt incredibly derivative and soulless.

Then we had Megaman X, a decent game that revitalized the series by taking the established formula and reinventing it with something new and creative. It wasn’t perfect, but it was a pretty excellent revival, and built the potential for something truly great.

And then we had Megaman X2. Would this be like Megaman 2, a sequel that would fix what was wrong with the first game, expand upon what it did right, and take it to the next level? Or would it be a copy and paste sequel that added virtually nothing new to the table, and just felt derivative and soulless?

Based on the fact that nobody ever really talks about Megaman X2 anymore, and the cynical opening paragraph of this review, you can probably guess which one.

Megaman X2 is not a bad game. But it’s undermined by the fact that everything it does well, Megaman X did just as well, and in many cases better. While there were moments of enjoyment in X2, most of the time I just felt that I would rather go back and play the first game again.

And what is truly disappointing is just how quickly the X series gave up. While the classic Megaman games were rather repetitive, they didn’t start to feel truly derivative until the fifth game. With the X games, they started shamelessly rehashing the formula after only one game, not even attempting to aspire to anything greater.

While Megaman X2 does many things well, the original did those same things better, and it didn’t even fix any of the things that were wrong with the first game. It’s a wasted opportunity, and it’s a waste of time.

How well it holds up       3/4

Personal enjoyment       2/5

Overall quality                6/10

For further information about the game:


Super Mario World 2: Yoshi’s Island RetroActive Review

Yoshi's Island picture

Super Mario World 2: Yoshi’s Island

Original Release Date: 1995

I have a confession to make; I’m actually not that big of a fan of the Mario games. This may come as a surprise, as I have stated that I have had fun with many of the Mario titles, and I’ve scored them rather high. But while I can recognize the quality of Mario, it’s not a series that I’m personally that attached to.

So honestly, I wasn’t expecting much going into Yoshi’s Island. I’d heard that many consider it to be one of the greatest 2D platformers ever made, but I’d heard the same thing about Super Mario Bros 3, and wound up finding that game rather underwhelming. And I thought that something similar was likely to happen with Yoshi’s Island. After all, it stars a green dinosaur escorting a baby Mario, with a rather childish aesthetic permeating the game’s environments. How could this be one of the greats?

Fortunately, I was pleasantly surprised. More than that, I had my expectations completely flipped on their heads. Not only do I understand why people say that Yoshi’s Island is one of the best platformers ever made, it’s the most pure fun I’ve had with a game from the SNES so far.

The gameplay retains the same basic elements from the Mario games, such as jumping across platforms, avoiding enemies, and reaching the end of each level. But it goes above and beyond what the Mario games did in several ways.

First of all, it eliminates the minor exploration of Super Mario Bros 3 and Super Mario World in favor of a more streamlined and straightforward approach to the world map. Some may see this as a negative, but I think it makes the game neater and less cluttered. A platformer should be about overcoming the various challenges the game puts before the player, not finding areas off the beaten path. If I wanted that, I’d go play something like Super Metroid.

With the ability to swallow enemies, turn them into eggs, and toss those eggs around, there are now many new ways of overcoming problems, and gives Yoshi a much more diverse move-set then Mario. The game takes excellent advantage of these abilities, and manages to use them with a great deal of variety without compromising the elegant simplicity Mario games are known for. As a result, the challenges the game provides are wonderfully varied and engaging. The game never starts to feel repetitive, which is an impressive feat, considering that all of the previous Mario games all started to feel a bit repetitive after a while.

The damage system is also much better than in the traditional Mario games. While you died in one hit in the old Mario games, in Yoshi’s Island you simply lose hold of baby Mario, and have to get him back before the timer runs out. This is a greatly appreciated change, as it gives the player a penalty for mistakes while also giving them a chance to rectify their mistake instead of just automatically booting them back to the last checkpoint.

On a side note, baby Mario’s crying isn’t that annoying. Yeah, it’s a little irritating, but people really seem to blow that one aspect of the game out of proportion. It’s like the people who complain about Navi from Ocarina of Time being the most annoying partner ever, when she’s really not that bad.

The aesthetic is also very well done, and has the same kind of timeless, endearing quality as the cell shaded graphics from Wind Waker. This, combined with excellent sound design and incredibly memorable and delightful music tracks, makes playing through the game a constant joy.

While all of the bosses are just enlarged versions of normal enemies, they still manage to be incredibly creative and fun, and are much more memorable than Koopa Kid #390, or however many they’re up to at this point.

There are a few minor issues. The inclusion of a lives system is an unfortunate archaic design choice. It’s almost entirely pointless for most of the game, as you’re unlikely to run out of lives, and only seems to be there to make the last stretch of the game more frustrating than it needs to be.

Another problem is the rather arbitrary obstacles that are one hit kills. Most of the objects that hurt Yoshi in the game will result in him losing his hold on baby Mario, which is perfectly fine. Then there are bottomless pits, which will result in an instant death, which is also fine. But then there are a handful of objects, such as lava and spikes that also result in instant death. This seems needlessly punishing, as most of the obstacles in the game give the player a chance to recover, and withholding that option for any obstacle other than bottomless pits seems rather draconic.

In the end, however, the flaws don’t really matter. The game is excellently crafted, and is borderline perfect. It took the traditional Mario framework, but then did something different and unique with it. The end result is hands down my favorite Mario game, and a game that should most definitely be looked at.

How well it holds up       4/4

Personal enjoyment       5/5

Overall quality                10/10


For further information about the game:



Fire Emblem: Mystery of the Emblem RetroActive Review

Fire Emblem; Mystery of the Emblem

Fire Emblem: Mystery of the Emblem

Original Release Date: 1994

Fire Emblem is a series that has managed to pique my interest in recent years. I absolutely loved Fire Emblem: Awakening, and as a result I ended up going back to play Fire Emblem: Blazing Sword, and I loved it as well. Both were excellently crafted games with engaging gameplay, memorable characters, and intriguing journeys that are worth experiencing again and again. Between these two games, I became much more interested in the franchise as a whole, and decided to go back and play all of them, including the ones not released outside of Japan, to see how the series has changed over the years.

And, after playing Mystery of the Emblem, what do I think? Honestly, it’s rather underwhelming.

Now, don’t get me wrong, it’s not terrible by any means. It’s got a decent storyline, okay characters, and functional gameplay. But there are countless things about Mystery of the Emblem that are not well designed, and don’t hold up to modern scrutiny.

First of all, the graphics and art style are really not very good. It’s very obvious that this is a remake of an 8 bit game, because instead of taking full advantage of the SNES’s capabilities, it tries its best to mimic the original Fire Emblem game, and as a result is not very interesting or appealing from a visual standpoint. Animations are basic, the maps are incredibly small, and the environments are not that memorable at all.

Another issue is that the game doesn’t really explain any of its mechanics, opting instead for a sink or swim attitude of making the player figure things out on their own. As someone who’s played several Fire Emblem games before this, I didn’t have too much trouble, but someone who is new to the series would have a much harder time. When it comes to some games, such as Mario or Megaman, you can get away without directly explaining anything, because the mechanics and goals of the game are very basic and straightforward, and don’t require much explanation. When you’re dealing with something much more complicated like a strategy RPG, however, not explaining how things work doesn’t give player the knowledge or the tools they need to overcome the challenges of the game. This is unnecessarily punishing, especially for a series as unforgiving as Fire Emblem.

Another issue is the story. While not a bad story, it’s not presented in a way that’s very memorable or visually appealing. While the original 8 bit game could get away with having lackluster presentation due to the limitations of the NES, Mystery of the Emblem doesn’t have that excuse. It also does a number of things that annoy me, such as dumping a bunch of exposition on the player right at the very start and expecting us to be immediately invested in a conflict we’ve just been introduced to. Rather than experiencing firsthand the events that led Marth to leaving his kingdom, we’re just told about them through several text dumps and expected to instantly care about a character we’ve just met. This is not the best way to start a story, as it’s better to start off simple, and add more details later on.

For example, in Blazing Sword the game starts by introducing Lyn, explaining that she is the only surviving member of her tribe after a bandit attack, and she is now traveling on her own. From there, the game gradually introduces new plot elements as the story progresses, and doesn’t overload the player with tons of information at once. It does get more exposition heavy later in the game, but by that point the player is invested in the world and the characters, so the story is allowed to indulge in a few exposition dumps. This is not the case with Mystery of the Emblem, as the story is not that engaging, and often opts to tell rather than show.

And playing through the game feels like a chore. The maps don’t feel that well designed, the characters are alright, but not that memorable, and the experience as a whole just feels kind of hollow.

Some people may say that I shouldn’t be so harsh to Mystery of the Emblem, as it’s quite an old game. My counterargument is that just because a game is old doesn’t mean it should get a free pass if in retrospect it has some rather major shortcomings. There are plenty of old games that hold up perfectly well that don’t need excuses made for them. Super Metroid is over 20 years old now, and it’s still brilliant. Hell, Fire Emblem: Blazing Sword is over a decade old now, and it still holds up beautifully despite lacking some of the more complicated features and graphics of Awakening. If a game doesn’t hold up to modern scrutiny, then it’s more than likely because there’s something severely flawed with the game overall.

The bottom line is that Mystery of the Emblem has not aged well. It’s not a bad game, but it falls short in every area imaginable when compared to games such as Blazing Sword and Awakening. As such, it’s really not worth going back to unless you’re a diehard Fire Emblem fan who really wants to explore the evolution of this series.

How well it holds up       2/4

Personal enjoyment       2/5

Overall quality                6/10

Not Recommended

For further information about the game:



Kirby Super Star RetroActive Review

Kirby Super Star Picture

Kirby Super Star

Original Release Date: 1996

Kirby’s Adventure was one of my favorite games for the NES, and it helped me to understand the charm of Kirby games. So, going into Kirby Super Star, I had fairly high expectations.

And, honestly? I was left feeling rather disappointed.

Now, don’t get me wrong, there were still lots of things that I liked. The enhanced 16 bit graphics hold up beautifully, as does the excellent soundtrack. It retains the same inhaling, exhaling, floating, and copying platforming that made Kirby’s Adventure so fun, but expands upon it in several ways.

First of all, Kirby can now create a CPU buddy from any enemy he has swallowed. A neat feature, it gives the player more breathing room, and allows for new ways of overcoming challenges. I also like how you don’t lose whatever ability Kirby has after taking just one hit, which was a constant annoyance in Kirby’s Adventure. Overall, Kirby Super Star has the same things that made Kirby’s Adventure so fun.

But the main problem with Kirby Super Star is that it has a distinct lack of focus. It feels like the developers didn’t want to concentrate on just making one, very good game, and instead made a bunch of smaller ones. As a result, the game feels rather disjointed and disconnected, with the different modes often having no connection whatsoever. This undermines the experience, as it completely eliminates the sense of accomplishment and progress that Kirby’s Adventure was so good at.

For example, the Revenge of Meta Knight section feels like an incomplete experience. The battles aboard the Halberd would have made for a pretty excellent climax in a complete game. But taken on its own, the player is thrown into the middle of a conflict with no context whatsoever, and it’s over so quickly that the player doesn’t have time to really get invested.

And each section feels that way, like an incomplete experience that wasn’t fully fleshed out. The game constantly switches around with different storylines, different mechanics, and different tones, and none of it feels that memorable.

In Kirby’s Adventure, the game gave the player one simple goal, stayed focused on that goal, and ended once that goal was completed. Kirby Super Star could have done the same thing if it had simply focused on one of its ideas, and then fully fleshed it out into a complete experience. In fact, they probably could have done it while still using most of the modes.

For example, Kirby Super Star could have had the main game be Milky Way Wishes. Each planet could have been structured like Dyna Blade, giving the player a sense of progression, and it could have incorporated elements from the Great Cave Offensive by having hidden treasures sprinkled throughout all of the levels. Each planet could have had a unique setting and art style, and the Halberd could have been on one of the planets. That way, it could have included elements from all of the modes while still creating one cohesive and well-paced experience.

I’m not saying that Kirby Super Star is a bad game, but it felt incredibly underwhelming when compared with Kirby’s Adventure. Had it actually focused on making one, fully fleshed out game rather than a bunch of smaller, less memorable ones, it would have been an overall better experience. As it stands, it’s not a bad game by any means, but it certainly could have been more than it was.

How well it holds up       4/4

Personal Enjoyment       3/5

Overall quality                7/10

For further information about the game: