Rewrite: Review is terrible; doesn't explain statements, conflicting tone everywhere, standard bandwagoning employed, etc. Is anyone ever going to review any of these games like they're supposed to?

This really shouldn't be overrated, because it's just like FF3; silly and experimental, with SSIV to fix that problem (and SSIV is pretty silly itself). III and IV are very different games from II, you might be better off not comparing them too much.

And yes, you really should just get the retail collection. It has all of them up to VI, including V Special (a much better game than V).

(blah blah samurai spirits blah blah)

Perfect's a great and interesting game, definitely underrated; another game that deserves an 8, probably even a 9. "That time period" consisted of games like SFA/SFA2, FF3/RBFF, Savage Reign/Kizuna Encounter, and KOF '95/KOF '96; WHP is better than nearly all of those and easily goes up there with SFA2.

WH and maybe WH2 aren't particularly worth playing, but they (usually) have great music and the all-important Deathmatch mode. 2 Jet I'm not sure on, probably better than 2.

It's a bit pointless to bring up something like "the latest versions are the most competitive", partly because that's not always true, but mostly because it's a given and doesn't usually matter. I'd totally appreciate the release of earlier SFIIIs despite their problems; I appreciated the release of the entire Fatal Fury series as well.

NG (even if it is FF3-tier) and 2I are both fun and crazy games, very different from SFIII, and they both have much better styling than SFIII ever could. SFIIIOE really should have been a trilogy pack, would have been perfect.

("7/10 is far from a bad score" is a poor mindset and wrong anyway. It stands for "mediocre", which Perfect is anything but.)

Going farther still? 2nd Squad is definitely worth playing, but the original has better design and generally has more variety. This is really a The Legend of Xanadu-type case.

FF is NOT an SFII clone. It's actually the successor to SF (even made by some of the same people), and Art of Fighting would build on it. I doubt it was meant to compete with SFII; it seems more like they were both in development at the same time.

SFII is NOT better balanced, for the above reason, but also because the original SFII is hilariously broken (of course... that's the point, it's an experiment). I get the feeling FF might actually be better balanced simply because it only has 3 characters. I'm not even sure this game has combos of any sort... honestly haven't played it that much.

If you own FF2, you pretty much have to get FFS. If you own neither, just get FFS.

Hard to say KOF94 is better. FFS is more refined and more interesting, easily; compare it to KOF95 instead.

Wow, trying to segregate the "normal" series from the "Real Bout" series is even more painful than I thought.

Fatal Fury 3 is an entirely experimental game and isn't worth taking seriously. RBFF solves that problem (it came out so soon after) and even manages to be a "part 2" as far as story.

(What was the point of bringing up Garou when talking about the line system?)

A bit misleading; there are only three "Special" games out of any SNK series, and RBS serves a very different purpose from FFS (and SSVS). Basically FF goes like so:

-Fatal Fury
-Fatal Fury 2 -> Fatal Fury Special
-Fatal Fury 3 -> Real Bout Fatal Fury
-Real Bout Fatal Fury Special -> Real Bout Fatal Fury 2
-Garou

(I should be using "Garou Densetsu", shouldn't I?)

(FF3/RBFF has mostly better music)

Real Bout was a bit odd with the "one-two" thing SNK did (FF3->RB, RBS->RB2). I'd also like to point out that Rick is a pretty big advantage; he's at least a Ken.

About Mary: if I remember right, there was another #18 reference in the character.

"But when reviewing classic retro titles, you have to judge if this game is still worth playing today."

Heavens no. This is the biggest problem with reviewing old games, because it's almost impossible to accurately make this judgement.

Besides that... There's no mention of what the game offers by itself, no comparison to contemporary works, no comparison to the important original version (arcade), and an attempt of an even more ridiculous judgement (the sequels do it better) with these basics ignored. That whole bit about "the formula holds up two decades later" is completely meaningless, especially when my other complaints are taken into account. Just about the only thing this article does right is a good understanding of semantics (using apostrophes in year abbreviations correctly).

The Master System was indeed the Famicom's correct rival; the purpose of the PC Engine was to beat all of that tech. It's much like the Dreamcast; it's a in-between, you compare it to the GameCube/PlayStation/Xbox even if it was released long before any of that tech was shown.

Surprisingly, the original comparison to the Super Famicom and the Mega Drive was a bit more apt, especially when you bring the PC Engine CD into things.