Gamasutra and EarthBound

Also of interest (well, to me at least) was that EB got its own page, but Chrono Trigger was listed as part of a later page on Japanese RPGs in general. Mind, it got a bigger mention than Live-A-Live, but still — EB getting over on CT is a notable decision in my book.

Also, John’s knowhow on the Mother games is quite polished, unlike a certain other stream-of-consciousness reviewer I won’t mention. About the only thing he gets a little mixed up on is the Diamondized status, which is actually mostly trivial to cure (Healing Gamma or a Secret Herb will deal with it nicely) but the fact that he brings it up in the first place indicates his heightened level of familiarity. What can I say, I’m a sucker for well-detailed accuracy. ;D

Definitely agree. That top 10 RPGs video from the other day goes to show that even 15 year after EB’s release, reviewers tend to half-ass – intentionally or not – their reviews about EarthBound (or is that the norm for most games?). So seeing stuff like this from such reputable places is a breath of fresh air.

Always good to see the Mother series get a mention somewhere.

Be it like this on Gamasutra, or Vinny Caravella saying “Oh look, it’s Earthbound.” when they fought the fetus boss on the endurance run on Giantbomb.

That was a pretty good review. Now if only it could have been treated like this when it came out…

Excellent review ;o

RPGs, JRPGs, CRPGs, what’s the diffrence? Good article by the way, gotta find time to read the rest.

I wouldn’t call it a `review`, per se; it’s part of a larger discussion of the games that shaped the genre.

Still an interesting read, though.

@Q: well then, excellent read ;o

GameInformer did something similar called “Ideal RPG” or something along the lines of that. But they didn’t mention EarthBound. Just a bunch of final fantasys and some Crono games.

“reviewers tend to half-ass – intentionally or not – their reviews about EarthBound”

I’d say it’s a function -now- of the game being aged. The retrospect some games receive is completely in contrast in their reception at the time. You can look at a lot of titles on say, the NES, and see that their reputations are either really inflated or unfairly maligned. How many games now are instantly-referenced pariahs by folks who have never played the game in any capacity let alone on the intended hardware?

It’s hard to straight up point fingers, but you can tell when there is only limited familiarity or the words in the review are almost completely based on hearsay. I’d say any inkling that the author played the game enough to write coherently about it is a good sign – whether the opinion is negative or positive .