Super Mario Bros. DX or Re Release of Original?

[ChrisMWaters 0]

OK, I need some opinions.

 

I'm getting my next paycheck tomorrow, and I'm going to purchase a version of Super Mario Bros. to play on my Game Boy...thus completing the collection (I have all 4 of the "Advance" games)

 

Now...here's what I'm wondering: Should I go for the recently added "NES Classic" version of Super Mario Bros....

 

Or, should I try to hunt down a (most likely used) copy of the Game Boy Color version, Super Mario Bros. Deluxe?

 

Thanks in advance.

[Lil' Bitch 0]

NES Classic I say!

[ChrisMWaters 0]

NES Classic I say!

OK...now reason why?

[ChrisMWaters 0]

Also...is there any way to play as Luigi in the NES Classic version without having to play 2 Player mode?

 

For some odd reason, I like to play as both Mario and Luigi in the Mario Bros. games. *Shrug*

[DrVenkman PhD 0]

If I buy either, I'll probably be an absolute moron about it and fall for Nintendo's "Old School" ad campaign about these games, go buy the Retro GBA SP (I currently have the old arctic one), Mario, and Zelda.

 

However, if being Old School isn't important, it's probably more financially sound to find the GBC version. In 1999, it was being called a perfect port (and it should have been... SMB is 20 years old now) so, without reading any reviews or things of that nature, I have no idea how the new release of it could be any different.

[razazteca 0]

DX had the Lost Levels that was in All Stars and the view was made for the GBC so the resolution will have issues because you only get to see half of the screen at a time. Classic is a direct port with nothing new added but it will fit the screen better I think.

 

Buy neither import a flashcard and play romz.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

DX is the better buy. The challenge levels to each stage make it a much better buy than just the original.

[BUTT 0]

I wouldn't spend 20 bucks on the NES Classic version. It just seems like a ripoff. The DX version, on the other hand, has the Lost Levels, as previously mentioned, plus a couple of other modes, one in which you race against a ghost through certain levels (and you can race against another player with a game link cable) and another in which you have to collect coins which are scattered throghout the levels. Plus, there are other features which you probably would never use, like a calendar, a picture album, a "fortune teller" feature, and all sorts of other crazy stuff. I didn't really mind the cropped screen, but then again I'm really good at Super Mario Bros. so I know where I'm going more often than not. So, if I were you, I'd choose the DX version.

[razazteca 0]

Wait a few weeks to see if there is overstock somewhere and buy the game for under $20.

[AndrewTS 0]

I've heard the screen in DX is horribly cropped. In SMB you really NEED to see as much of the screen as possible, so it can ramp up the difficulty if nothing else changed. The same problem screwed Rayman Advance and Megaman and Bass on GBA.

 

 

If you're the sort who eats the Mega Man Zero games for lunch, by all means go with DX.

 

However, the screen is proportioned correctly in the NES Classic release.

 

Again, just going from the experiences of others, not personal experience.

 

Personally, I'd wait until Super Mario All Stars comes out on GBA. (No, I haven't heard about Nintendo doing it, but it wouldn't surprise me).

[BUTT 0]

Here are screenshots from the two versions for comparison:

 

DX:

 

Classic NES (The "Z Button: Options" in the upper right corner is because the shot is from the Game Boy Player):

[Blue Bacchus 0]

The Classic is definately prettier than the DX version.

[Art Sandusky 0]

(and it should have been... SMB is 20 years old now)

AGH DON'T SAY THAT

 

(feels SO OLD)

[Karnage 0]

However, the screen is proportioned correctly in the NES Classic release.

I think they had to do some minjor adjustments to the screen because the GBA screen is more rectangular than square.

[Only The Strong Survive 0]

go with The Lost Levels... definitely worth whatever price the GBC Mario is at now

[ChrisMWaters 0]

No one has yet replied to my question:

 

Is Luigi a playable character if you're playing the NES Classic version on one Game Boy, or do you need two to play as Luigi?

[DrVenkman PhD 0]

This is a pure guess, but since it's not "Mario Advanced 5: Super Mario Brothers" but simply "Super Mario Brothers", I would assume it's an exact port where you are Mario.

 

In a somewhat annoying move, GameFAQS doesn't seem to care to add an entry into the GBA area for these NES Classic games. While I understand that it would be viewed as unnecessary, it would be nice if they put them there anyway just so there was a specific area to discuss matters like this. Oh well. People apparently talk about the GBA port in the NES section...

 

DX has its virtues. It certainly has more replay to the casual player with yoshi egg and red coin hunting, race mode, and Lost Levels. Unfortunately, the piranha plant hit detection was altered which makes it worthless for speed runs. They also removed the minus world trick among other things.

 

I prefer the SMB for GBA over DX because it appears to be a completely unaltered version of SMB. It has the original piranha plant hit detection. It has the minus world trick, etc. Also, the field of vision is not limited like DX.

 

Both have their pros and cons, but I prefer the GBA version.

[AndrewTS 0]

However, the screen is proportioned correctly in the NES Classic release.

I think they had to do some minjor adjustments to the screen because the GBA screen is more rectangular than square.

Probably slightly, but nothing that is going to seriously affect play like the GBC version.

 

go with The Lost Levels... definitely worth whatever price the GBC Mario is at now

 

...$19.99 up the last Gamestop I saw, and that's without a box or instructions. Knowing Chris, that could be a factor as well. However, on half.com for slightly more you can get the box and instructions, too.

 

Is Luigi a playable character if you're playing the NES Classic version on one Game Boy, or do you need two to play as Luigi?

 

It's supposed to be the same as the original, so it's unlikely. Can't give you a certain answer. Surely some one else here has already gotten it, hm?

 

Watch Nintendo then do a Super Mario Bros. Gold Edition or something, given the Zero Mission treatment.

 

Although I wouldn't mind if it was part of a Mario Superstar game--i.e. a GBA title that is basically a ton of games in one. Kirby Superstar is a game I gotta own, but I've only seen it to rent. The RPG spoof is great.

[DrVenkman PhD 0]

Off topic, to this day I do not understand why the Zelda games didn't get an All-Star 16-bit treatment. I mean, now that "All-Stars" updates for the Mario games are 11 years old, I can look back and realize I like the originals better for their "charm" (for lack of a better word to say "old 8 bit graphics"), but I think it would be awesome to at least try a version of the original Zelda that looks like A Link to the Past.

 

I heard something about that existing in Japan via satellite gaming, but I figure now, with the GBA, a really great looking update could be made.

[AndrewTS 0]

Off topic, to this day I do not understand why the Zelda games didn't get an All-Star 16-bit treatment. I mean, now that "All-Stars" updates for the Mario games are 11 years old, I can look back and realize I like the originals better for their "charm" (for lack of a better word to say "old 8 bit graphics"), but I think it would be awesome to at least try a version of the original Zelda that looks like A Link to the Past.

Well, they released the Zelda collection disc for GC, but that has some glaring omissions: Link to the Past (which got a stand-alone GBA release) and the Game Boy games.

 

I think they were worried about people complaining that they tinked with a classic, or just figured that if you were into it enough to want to play the original, you wouldn't really need an upgraded version, and so Nintendo could focus energies elsewhere.

 

Plus, the game that is often considered the one of the very best of the Zelda games, OoT, isn't possible on the GBA.

 

It's be interesting to see them put Zelda 1, 2, LttP, Link's Awakening, the Oracles, and maybe even the new GC Four Swords all together--but sounds more fitting to a Gamecube Disc.

 

Why they didn't do a better job the last time I don't get. Nintendo's Incomplete Anthologies of LoZ are getting increasingly annoying. Do it right, already. Upgraded graphics and music, but nothing else!

 

I've noticed in general that the recent trend of Retrogaming usually strays far away from "upgrading" the original game. Of course, there's good ways to do it--Double Dragon Advance, and bad ways to do it--River City Ransom EX. Nintendo seems to be going the "safe" (or lazy) route and not upgrading.

 

Then again, there's that puzzling Zero Mission...resting somewhere between "remake" and "prequel."

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Super Mario Bros. looked pretty fantastic when it originally hit in 1985. The game has aged fairly well, though there's some graphical weirdness in the Game Boy Advance version of the game that wasn't present in the original. Like all of the Classic NES Series games, parts of the game have been squeezed down to fit on the GBA screen, which is a slightly different aspect ratio than a television screen. In most games, this is only really noticeable when you look at on-screen text. Here, however, Mario looks really weird. He jiggles and jitters when he runs, and some of the sprites in the game look like they've been scrunched down a bit. Some still look OK, while others look really sloppy.

 

On an actual Game Boy Advance, the problems aren't as prevalent. But when you put the game into a Game Boy Player, the problems are magnified. Setting the GB Player's screen filter to soft helps a bit, but it's still noticeably worse than the original NES version.

 

--GameSpot

[JasonX 0]

Off topic, to this day I do not understand why the Zelda games didn't get an All-Star 16-bit treatment. I mean, now that "All-Stars" updates for the Mario games are 11 years old, I can look back and realize I like the originals better for their "charm" (for lack of a better word to say "old 8 bit graphics"), but I think it would be awesome to at least try a version of the original Zelda that looks like A Link to the Past.

 

I heard something about that existing in Japan via satellite gaming, but I figure now, with the GBA, a really great looking update could be made.

They actually had a updated version of Legend of Zelda 1 in the works in 2000, which would have been released alongside the two Oracle Zelda GBC games but shelved it do to problems with getting everything to fit in the GBC screen.

[chaosrage 0]

Off topic, to this day I do not understand why the Zelda games didn't get an All-Star 16-bit treatment. I mean, now that "All-Stars" updates for the Mario games are 11 years old, I can look back and realize I like the originals better for their "charm" (for lack of a better word to say "old 8 bit graphics"), but I think it would be awesome to at least try a version of the original Zelda that looks like A Link to the Past.

 

I heard something about that existing in Japan via satellite gaming, but I figure now, with the GBA, a really great looking update could be made.

I have the rom. It's not exactly the same, the world is a little bit smaller and the levels are different, but it's close enough.