A map that highlights locations where you can find items relevant to your quest, like they used in the remake of III, could go a long way toward making II more accessible. I didn't have a lot of issues with it, and in fact, it remains one of my favorite RPGs. Back in the day, it was the one that made me realize I was more than a casual fan of the genre.

I'm a bit of an apologist for this game. In context, I think it's a good sequel and does a lot of things right. I played it immediately after playing DQ1 and the change in scope really stands out. It is very deliberately (and literally) comparing itself to the size of the original game and one-uping.

There are decisions that were bad in retrospect; they don't bother me as much, I guess, since they made historical sense.

I do think if someone wants to play this game, they should play the GBC version instead of the original. It is much faster and less plodding, but still retains the charm.

I look forward to seeing how they handle this game with the 2DHD remake; many problems are inherent to its design, and QoL features won't change those.

It was pretty tough, and there was a lot of risk/reward-style play. I always associated Frankenstein: The Monster Returns with Dark Souls, even though F:TMR aged very poorly.

I am playing this for the first time just now and agree it is strangely less enjoyable to the original, when, on paper it is far superior. I am probably heading for a 2/5. Maybe 2.5 just for the Hill Street Blues reference in the text "lets be careful out there!".

I just spent 4000 gold on a giant hammer then within 30 minutes found a superior sword in a nearby dungeon. Nobody else can use the hammer so it is a waste unless there is a 'hang a giant picture on the wall' sidequest. It will take ages to get that last 4000 gold back. Plus I have an echo flute to detect something on the world map but have not really been provided any reason or motivation to do so. I have ship and have little idea what I am meant to do. I am all for open worlds but please give me a hook or two.

I'll see if a little use of a walkthrough can revive my interest but shockingly I might not complete this one (and I happily did the worst Phantasy Star).

Little Nemo was the Dark Souls of mascot platformers, before being the Dark Souls of anything was a thing.

Interesting you bring up the viewpoint being novel, because prior to submitting that review I played some Hard Drivin' for the Sega Genesis and I played Test Drive II for the SNES after that review. Both weren't what I was expecting them to be: the former being very short (fair for the ARCADE version I guess, considering the game itself was novel when it first came out) and the latter being much more of a challenge than I expected.

I actually got the first Top Gear about a month or so ago for the SNES (even after knowing about the recent collection). I played it for a little bit, seemed fun, but haven't returned to it since I was occupied with other stuff. Also, I was a little burned out from playing another game the devs made prior to Top Gear called Lotus Turbo Challenge for the Genesis; a checkpoint racer similar to OutRun, I tried beating all its courses, but the final two courses were sadistic.

I liked the Top Gear games pretty well. They recently released a compilation of them for Switch, but due to clashing trademarks (probably the more recent television show with that name), they changed the title. It's called Top Racer Collection and features the three SNES entries.

Nice review, DH.

The game being crap aside, the inside-the-car viewpoint is pretty novel, no? I can't recall seeing too many 16 bit games that did this--they always have the little car on the screen. Looks kind of impressive.

What did you guys think of the Top Gear series for the SNES? I recall really liking those games.

Thank you! I often wonder about that with other games that aren't very good: did someone like it? This one does have a few positive reviews on Steam, so someone was bound to enjoy it, even just a little bit. I'm not one of those people, but I appreciate the effort that went into it at any rate.

This was a terrific read, Joe. You've convinced me that I have no reason to ever play this game. I wonder if there are people out there who love it? Like... they played it as a kid when their only other option was Spider Solitaire, and so it holds a place in their hearts? That seems like the only reason someone would pick this one up now, with so many superior time killers available.

You're right, I think, but it's weird. The NES era had some amazing ports, made by developers who clearly understood how to modify their games to take advantage of the console. It's sad those same developers apparently forgot the art when the SNES rolled around. I suspect it was because they had so much more power, they thought, "Hey, a perfect port is almost within reach!" They chased after horsepower without getting their ducks in a row first. Kind of like how modern developers go after the latest tech bells and whistles, but the game hiding behind all that flash might not be super worthwhile.

Oh believe me, I love brevity in my games when they're done right, but sadly this wasn't one of them for me.

Picking up on the discussion we had in the Chase H.Q. II review, there really is an art in trying to make an arcade-style game for a home release, and again it feels like Taito fumbled the attempt here. There's just something about arcade ports during the early to mid 1990s where it feels like some developers either didn't "get" that they needed to add more variety or replay value to these games or they simply didn't care; or they had really, REALLY short development periods before release.

I think that's why companies like Namco hit a stride during the mid to late 90s with some of their home conversions like Soul Blade and Tekken 3, because not only did they bring the arcade experience home, but they went beyond that and delivered some unique extra content.

This is also why I'll always mock the Dreamcast port of 18-Wheeler whenever the opportunity presents itself (i.e. my "recent" DC reviews), because that game is an absolute trash port that doesn't work as a home game.

I enjoyed the heck out of Dragon's Dogma 2, which came out this year and which I wrote about elsewhere. Dark Arisen was on sale to buy on various platforms for $5 recently, and I have it on almost every device I own now with plans to play it... eventually. Good job getting this review out before 2025, as you said. Down to the wire, but it still counts!

Yes, I think you're right. I didn't play the SNES version, since it wasn't localized here. But what you're describing is mostly a match with the HD remake. My first struggle was with the troll that replaced a king, which I remember being pretty easy on the NES. And then I had trouble with a gargoyle (which I think might be new to this one). After that, I was good until the boss rush that starts with King Hydra. And then there's the post-game content, which is just absurd. I would probably spend more time with it if I were a teen again and only had this game to play for months, but that's not the case. ;-)

Yesterday, while ringing up groceries at work, I was thinking about how Marble Madness is a really fun game. I saved up my money as a kid and finally managed to buy it, and I liked what was there. But you can get through the whole thing in 5 minutes. If you take longer, you'll probably just have to try again. A perfect arcade experience, really, but not so ideal when you buy a pricey cartridge that will have the job of entertaining you for months. It reminds me why I fell in love with RPGs. There were many other reasons too, but length was definitely a factor. As for Super Chase H.Q., I wouldn't mind its brevity now. Sometimes, I like to go back to old retro games and play around with them for a bit before moving onto something else. The brevity might in that case be a mark in its favor. It sounds like it would have been a bummer of a game to receive as my annual Christmas gift game, though!

Grinding seems to have taken a note from the Super Famicom version. When I played it a handful of years ago, it seemed like I had to work a bit more to get through the final stretch. Too low a level and you'd be dead meat against the final boss because the three previous ones would deplete you too much. Not so much King Hydra, but the second one in particular (palette-swap Baramos) with its brutal spells and 2-3 attacks per round.

So, it might have kept those changes. Up until that point, I think the only real boost in difficulty might have been Orochi. Who got maybe one more turn per round or got some advantage that made it a fair bit more difficult.

Like the previous comment, I also find this review to be confusing. Also, many of the points raised reflect a misunderstanding of the era in which the game was made, and so many of the critiques levied are simply invalid.

That said, the inability to create a character from scratch is a valid critique. However, for players that just want to jump in and play straight away, this is not such a bad thing. Nevertheless, I would have indeed preferred to have been given both options (pre-selected characters or a default party plus the option to create one), for those players that want more control of character creation. That said I thought OotG had strong, likeable characters in each of the classes (in my opinion) and so this was not a big issue for me.

However, where the review starts to go downhill is in the discussion of its plot, perceived lack of originality, and combat rules.

Most of the review is a big diatribe against OotG's turn-based combat system, particularly various perceived AI issues. However, these critiques make little sense given both the competition and the time period in which the game was produced (1992). Games have certainly come a long way since then, so I find the author's critique especially unfair, given that the Gold Box games he mentions (including Pools of Radiance) have nearly identical failings (and others) with the combat AI. This makes sense given that OotG's combat system was derived from said games.

Sure, OotG's gameworld is "small" compared to something like Ultima 7, but it still provides ~15 - 20 hours of gameplay (possibly more). For a console at the time with small hucards, that's actually pretty good and typical. Pools of Radiance may take 30 hours or so. That is longer, sure, but it is still nothing compared to much later games like Baldur's Gate or Pillars of Eternity (60 - 100 hours or more). Unfortunately, in my advancing age, and with many responsibilities, I simply do not have the time I had when I was younger, so I do appreciate games I can power through in a day or so.

The author says the game has no plot, but OotG definitely does have a nice one (for its time especially). Check the wikipedia article. It may not be Planescape:Torment quality (and, again, that is a much later 1999 game), but there is definitely a strong horror element that permeates it, with conspiracies, attempted assassinations/kidnappings of political leaders, and alliances between different dark forces. The author is selling this point way short.

The author also has issues with both: a) the players being 'restricted' to playing lawful good characters and, b) having limited dialogue options. However, it wasn't until the Fallouts and Planescape:Torment (several years later, 1997 - 1999) that we actually got to see that being done in a truly big way. It is worth noting that none of the other popular PC RPGs at the time (e.g. Gold Box, Eye of the Beholder) had very meaningful dialogue either. Alignment in the Gold box games did have some impact on you, but it was relatively minimal by comparison, mostly influencing in more subtle ways (e.g. whether a particularly-aligned character can use a certain weapon).

In my view, where Order of the Griffon "innovates" is in removing many of the annoyances in many Gold Box games (poor graphics, bad or nonexistent music, some unnecessary details), resulting in a more enjoyable and immersive overall experience. The music, for instance, also fits the mood and jived well with the action and vampire story line. This was done better than any other game that I had played at the time. it does not hurt either that OotG was the first video game (RPG or otherwise) made for the Mystara campaign setting.

I have no examples, because I haven't played many (or possibly any) of their games. I didn't know that about the ravens genus. That's kind of cool info, and a neat little Easter egg for the game.

It appears Ravensoft liked to insert references to their name in their games! The hero Corvus is named after the genus that ravens belong to. Reminds me of when the company took over the Jedi Knight series, and changed the hero's ship to the Raven's Claw (admittedly better than his previous ship's name, the Moldy Crow!)

Anyone know any other examples?

Thanks for reading, Venter. Funny thing is that I never intended to review the game; I simply wanted to kill some time with something before the game that I actually wanted to review arrived. Ironically, I'm not sure if I even want to play the intended game now...

This was fun to write, though. There was a LOT of information I had to crunch in, so the challenge came in explaining the game to the reader without being overbearing. In doing so, I had to mention certain things in passing.