Kirby's Adventure Review (NES)

One of the best on the NES (and way better than other Kirbys)

It's a fantastic game! I reccomend to everybody!
Anybody knows if I reset the game with Wii Remote, will I lose my progress?

Surely inspiration for the word 'average'. Pales in comparison to the likes of Super Mario Bros. and Sonic The Hedgehog.

Not at all, Roo. The graphics are great, the abilities are great... the game may be easy but it does take a long time to finish finding all the secret areas and is fun all the way through. The NES Super Mario Bros. games may be slightly better than this but Kirby is certainly better than any SMS Sonic game. I'd definitely this game an 8/10. It is very good.

Not at all, Bass X0. This is by-the-numbers 2D platforming; the second entry into a series that has continously failed to set the gaming world alight. Graphics are good, but the abilities are unimaginative and make the game too easy to be much fun. It makes for passble enjoyment, but Kirby's Adventure (and the rest of the post-Dream Land games, for that matter) is Nintendo's autopilot platformer. Time to rub that emotional residue off of those rose-tinted glasses.

Well other than the main Mario games, I'd rather play Kirby's Adventure than any other NES platformer. And that includes the Megaman games. It really is that fun.

...don't get me started on Mega Man!

Anyway, I wouldn't recommend Kirby's Adventure. That's all I've got to say about that.

How can you find Kirby average, but like Sonic?

Mario wrote the book, Kirby is a children's book difficulty wise, and Sonic probably can't spell book.

If Mario wrote the book, then he's one crappy author. Everything Roo said was correct, but I would like to add that Mario, Kirby, and Link pale in comparison to what Sonic has done, or will ever do. And I'm not talking about crappy game play, glitches, or bad voice acting. I'm talking about complex storylines and relationships, real character development, and an actual timeline. These are all things Sonic games possess, unlike practically anything Nintendo has ever made.

Link reincarnating over and over, that's just lazy. Instead of finding a way to make the games connect, each game stars a different Link! Oh, how convenient for the writers. And hey, Zelda does the same thing. But, Link's the hero of time, so now it's okay. And, Link never talks, but it's okay because now we (the gamers) can project our own interpretation of him, onto him! Just a bunch of shortcuts, that's what that is.

Mario and Kirby on the other hand, share the same problem. Neither of them talk, and only a handful of the games actually connect to each other. But, of course, those few games don't connect to any of the other games. And those stories (except for Paper Mario and its sequel) usually involve some of the deepest storytelling known to fiction. Like, Bowser kidnaps Peach, or King Dedede has stolen all the fruit from Dreamland. So deep! Oh, and on top of that, nobody talks, yet again!

And one more thing! It takes Super Smash Bros. Brawl to collect 35 Nintendo characters. All of whom are the best of what Nintendo has to offer (except for maybe Ice Climbers and Lucas). Sonic however, has 26 colorful and creative characters from that one franchise alone! All of whom are incredibly fun to watch, to see what they'll do next. Now that's a Smash Bros. I want to play.

Oh, and I don't reccoment this game either.

Oh, and on top of that, nobody talks, yet again!

Yeah, so? No big deal. Kirby doesn't even talk in his own cartoon show.

@Digiki: Because I feel Sonic The Hedgehog (from the Meag Drive series) is a better game? Not to overcomplicate things here, but...

16-bit games tend to be superior to 8-bit games because of their capabiltities. So lets stick to comparing NES Kirby to the NES Mario and SMS Sonic games, eh?

It's a big deal to me. I like the main character to have a personality beyond making happy, surprised, or sad facial expressions.

many games on the NES didn't bother with having a story and that a few lines of text in the instruction booklet was enough. Of course there were also a good amount which did have an in-game storyline but it wasn't as necessary back then as people expect from modern games.

Because instead of making a Sonic game that plays well, they should focus on stupid new characters, shallow storylines and characters, and an unneeded timeline...

Fire Emblem does the things you complimented about Sonic several times better, and is actually fun to play.

Wow, because if something doesn't talk it automatically loses... Gameplay is what's important.

And how does Sonic have creative characters? Oh look a bunch of different coloured hedgehogs, and other characters based on animals... By that logic Pokemon has 493 colourful and creative characters, +alternate forms, +the trainers

Fire Emblem is garbage. Just another faceless anime with no personality. Pokemon on the other hand used to have charisma, but that ship has sailed.

And the reason I specifically stated that I'm not talking about game play, is because what's fun and what's not fun are clearly subjective. For example, I would rather play Sonic over Fire Emblem, because to me, the latter is nothing but a waste of time and money. It's clear Digiki that you don't appreciate storytelling, and prefer to have your imagination stimulated by bright colors and loud sounds. You like your game to play good, and nothing else, because God forbid, you be forced to think!

Oh, and by the way, when nearly every franchise you own features a silent protagonist, well...it doesn't take a brain surgeon to see that the developers are being lazy. Nintendo is a bunch of underachievers. They celebrate mediocrity, and you cheer right along with them! Whoopee!

Simple storylines are one thing, but dumb ones are quite another. Paper Mario was simple, Super Mario Galaxy was dumb. And don't blame the age of a game for its story, because Metal Gear was older, and it had one of the most uncannily deep stories ever (even by today's standards).

Sonic's characters are superior to Nintendo's entire roster in many ways. Instead of looking shocked or sad when they want to convey emotion, they say how they feel. Granted, the new voice cast is bad, but that's not Sonic's fault, that's Sega's fault. And finally, Sonic characters are numerous, each with their own distinct look and personality that sets them apart from the pack. Now, Mario and Link only have about three characters in each of their respective franchises that are worth giving a damn about.

^ You're saying that Fire Emblem has a worse story than Sonic? SONIC!?!? Clearly, you've never played the FE games. 1 game has as much story as all the Sonic games combined (Sonic Adventure 1& 2 excluded).
Emotions for Nintendo characters require imagination (which I prefer). Sonic games have what feels like rushed, and cheesy dialogue.
And finally, Sonic characters are numerous, each with their own distinct look and personality that sets them apart from the pack
What? The only good Sonic characters are Sonic, Knuckles, and Shadow.

The stories present in Fire Emblem titles are quite common amongst the RPG genre. A kingdom is in danger, a princess has been kidnapped, you're an androgynous youth who is an insecure warrior-in-training (or any combination of the three). Either way, you’re never surprised, and my intellect is never stimulated.

What you see as imagination, I see as pure laziness. Smiling and grunting is no substitute for a real conversation. And the primary reason the dialogue in Sonic games these days are so corny, is because of the voice acting.

The only Sonic characters I’m not crazy about are Big and Cream, because it seems like the only reason they ever get involved in the story is because Froggy and Cheese (their respective companions) are always kidnapped or go missing. Other than that, I love the whole roster to death!

And you're right, both Sonic Adventures have amazing stories. You didn't say that, but it seemed like you implied it.

Shinnok, I implore you to look into Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn's story, which has enough twists and turns to keep someone satisfied. A lot of politics are involved too.

If you still hate it then, well, wow... What the heck.

Well since the Wii has such a crummy selection, I might have to.

Ugh. because I don't care about a story in a freaking platform game, I don't like stories...

Personally I'd rather not have a story than a stupid, tacked-on, rush-job of a story. Calling Fire Emblem a faceless anime is either ignorant or idiotic (although it's some of both if it's ignorant). Sonic's characters don't hold a candle to most FE characters, or even the average RPG character. Lots of Sonic characters don't have a distinct look, and none are interesting."Hi I'm Sonic, I go fast!" "Hi I'm Amy, I stock Sonic, that's about it"

But I suppose you're right, I guess I like lazy storytelling (this is sarcasm, for those that don't know), and you like lazy gameplay. "Look at me, I'm playing Sonic, I can hold the d-pad/analog stick in one direction, and occasionally jump!"

Link can stay silent, there's nothing wrong with a silent protagonist, but I suppose you are opposed to role-playing (or just too lazy) so you criticize it because, they didn't make dialogue for you.

I can agree with the Wii lack of selection though.

First of all, there is everything wrong with a silent protagonist! The developers didn't want to write Link's dialogue, so they make him grunt or smile when he's hurt of happy. And, that's supposed to satisfy me? Do they really expect me to believe that they did that so I could interpret the character for myself? Please, Link is by far the most one-dimensional fictional character on the planet. Even Mario has more depth than him. It takes a real moron to think that Link's personality is anything beyond that of the quintessential hero.

Second, there's no point in arguing about Fire Emblem. You clearly worship the game, so you'll deny any of its obvious flaws. I on the other hand don't need Nintendo to tell me when a game is good or not. I can look at it from an unbiased perspective and judge for myself whether or not it's worthy of my time.

Finally, you clearly are a fan of lazy storytelling, despite your admitted sarcasm. I can deal with crappy game play, it doesn't bother me one bit. But a crappy story, is simply out of the question. That's why I love Sonic, he delivers both. Other games that do the same: Metal Gear Solid 3, Killer 7, Resident Evil 4, and shockingly (despite Link's presence) Twilight Princess.

^ Ugh. If I wanted a good plot, I'd read a book or watch a movie. What you clearly do not get is that gameplay is the whole point of games from the start. If you go through games with crappy gameplay just to see the next cutscene or plot twist (cough*Final Fantasy*cough, don't kill me FF fanboys) you clearly should not play games.

Since young bring it up, books are lazy storytelling too. I mean, think about it. Alan Moore wrote the Watchmen, one of the most critically acclaimed graphic novels of all time. Now, why do you think that it was so enchanting? Simple, the artwork immerses you in the universe described in the text. Now, this is where a book fails to capture the imagination like a graphic novel or a movie can. I’m not completely immune to a book’s charm (To Kill A Mockingbird, and The Great Gatsby are great stories), and you can call me dumb if you have to, but I just don’t care for them.

Unfortunately, movies these days are equally as uninspiring (Ultraviolet, I, Robot, Quantum of Solace), so video games seem to be the only outlet for people like myself to stretch our creative wings. The stories and characters present in Sonic the Hedgehog, Killer7, and Resident Evil 4 inspire me. The game play is just a plus, however memorable that plus may be. I haven’t seen a movie, or read a book that has been able to do that for me in a long time.

And why shouldn't I play games? What, because I don't enjoy them the way you do? Oh, and speaking of Final Fantasy, everything about it (except for Auron) blows chunks!

Oh yeah, and one more thing! Why do you people keep typing "ugh". Can't you come up with any other way to convey frustration?

@Shinnok. Go and play MK, stop stinking out of your face.

I liked Sonic when I was 15, but now I downloaded every Mario & Kirby game on the VC so far, because Sonic can't hold a chance. Why talking about the story, damn it's a standard platform game! storywise sonic was always a waste. The only thing that makes Sonic shine is when finally and rarely a level is designed to have fast fluid gameplay.

Shinnok, you need your bad voice-overs and I find it more appealing, positively imaginative and intellectual to read a good-written text.
You want your game to go on and on, adding more to the storyline of a hedgehog with some magical gems, but you can't like series that played a thousand years later / with newborn characters / in a parallel world? Your opinion is garbagedump. All you know about Fire Emblem (or Nintendo in general) is 5 minutes of internet-info. I go and make a Babality on you.

I'm a Fire Emblem fanboy because I don't think it's a faceless anime? When it isn't at all. Sure the stories are standard, and you don't like that, you only like the crappy Sonic ones. I argue your idiotic comment and you call me a fanboy, I'm not praising FE, like you're praising that dopey hedgehog, I've yet to call you a fanboy (as of this line) but you most definitely are one. Maybe if a flaw in FE was presented it would be discussed, standard stories is done.

Claiming Sonic is great at something it doesn't do well at all, and then when people say it isn't you ignore it, then just dumbly criticize something else. Has Sonic ever delivered a good story, much less both a good story and good gameplay (which it rarely delivers as well)?

We know you hate silent protagonists, you don't need to rant on them. Link doesn't need to speak. They don't want to make him speak, who cares if you don't like it, others do. If you hate it so much, don't play Zelda since it obviously doesn't cater to your interests, there are hundreds of characters out there that do talk. And the interconnecting storylines thing from way back is dumb too, why waste time creating, and developing some silly way to make all the games somehow connected, if the games are made to standalone that should be enough, because how many sequels with whack stories do we need? The Tales series isn't interconnected, hurry go bash it!

This game was a big deal when it came out, but many of the sequels eclipse this game in graphics and music. In fact most of the sequels are exact remakes of this game, with maybe a few extra enemies or abilities, the Kirby series has really stagnated after this entry

@ 9. Shinnok

Were you born yesterday??? All of these are modern gaming conventions, and while nice, those additions alone will not make the game fun. Fun = gamplay, what the gamer DOES, not what he or she does between levels. Personally, i don't care if voice-overs, story, or anything exist besides great gameplay, because that is all that really matters. "Stories" are just excuses to tear villains a new one.

Shinnok I don't know whether to laugh at you or with you! "books are lazy storytelling too", is that ALL books or just the handful you've read? I used to be wary and quite disinterested in reading but it's something that's really grown on me, particularly with the large amount of time I spend travelling on buses and trains. You'll find there's actually great books that go way, way, way beyond the black and white Hollywood-ist "he's the goody, he's the baddy" that's present in one form or another in all games with a vague semblance of plot. I'd suggest you also set your DVD collecting sights beyond the trash being churned out by Hollywood.

Your argument against Watchmen as an example of poor story-telling in a book is fundamentally flawed logic. Watchmen exists partly as a visual medium, it needs the images to function! The images back up the story, that's the principle of the graphic novel, that's why it's a graphic novel and not a novel. I don't even like graphic novels, but I appreciate and respect the medium and what it does and why people like it.

As for plots or "character development" within games, it's irrelevant to me, some games need it others don't. There's no character development or emotional weight in Pac-Man or Space Invaders - does it make them any less important or seminal? Or more importantly, fun? No, it doesn't! I don't care why Pac-Man has to collect his little pills, how he got in his maze and why the ghosts have got such a beef with him. I also don't care to know where the Space Invaders come from and who's in charge of my little ship at the bottom of the screen. It would actually be a tremendous detriment to the games if those questions were answered too.

And the use of speech is irrelevant! Kirby's got bags of character, just because the developers didn't have the physical resources in the NES, or the wish to make him express pain or delight via a sampled "ooh" doesn't diminish his character. Besides, he has that comedy vaccuum-cleaner sound he makes when he breathes in, that's far better than some cliched sound of pain. Who's to say a "Kirby" feels pain anyway? Maybe his polymorphic capabilities mean he is deprived of the neccessary sensorary neurones? I don't know, all I know is he's a silly little pink blob in a great little game.

Personally as well I find voice acting in surreal games to be a hindrance. The worst post-SNES addition to Mario has been his attrocious (and slightly racist) "Italian" accent. I'd rather he kept mum than open his cake-hole and let that dreadful sound out, it's almost as if part of his mystique has gone for me as now I know what his voice sounds like.

I play games, particularly retro games, for a bit of fun, escapism and nostalgia - not to spent time with a pixellated Hamlet. I guess that's our fundamental difference Shinnok!

Argueably still Kirby's best ever game in many people's eyes. I think I'd rank it ONE OF the best

While I haven't really played much of the original, I have played the Game Boy Advance remake Kirby: Nightmare in Dream Land, and I thought it was an awesome game.
Dazza says it was "Kirby's first outing" (though technically it was Kirby's Dream Land), although if he means the first game in the series where Kirby could copy abilities, then yes, I suppose it is.
Makes me wonder how this game would've looked if it was made for the SNES.
To each his own.

You know, I came into this late. I was playing Kirby's Epic Yarn and thinking this would be a great way to spend 500 points. Then I read all of the comments.

Sonic's characters are superior to Nintendo's entire roster in many ways. Instead of looking shocked or sad when they want to convey emotion, they say how they feel.

And now I just have one thing to say. "You can't just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!"

How does an NES Kirby game comment section turns into Sonic and Fire Emblem? what the crap, dont worry bout what others think of a game. If you like it, good for you, other guys are missing out. You enjoy what you like, and dont let anyone tell you different.
And as for the game that this comment section is for, I find this game to be quite classical. Gives you that old school feeling. I like.

Did anyone mention that the tagline is wrong? It is actually not Kirby's first outing.

But either way, I've never been big on Kirby's Adventure. So many put this above Kirby Superstar and I just don't get it. Especially the powers, I loathe the one-hit and one-use powers of most Kirby games that Superstar fixed and got right. The powers just aren't worth using since they're all situational and are way too limiting.

This is truly my favorite game of all time.