I'd like a list of NES games I should concentrate on -- i.e. which NES games should I try to beat?

I've beaten quite a number of hard games although there are some that are still on my "to-do" list. Please limit to US releases if possible. I don't really care to get into importing games.

Already Beaten (Only a small sample, not including games I consider easy unless they're games others commonly consider hard):
Abadox
Adventure Island 2
Adventure Island III
Adventures of Lolo
Adventures of Lolo 2
Air Fortress
Amagon
Back to the Future
Battletoads
Bionic Commando
Bucky O'Hare
Bugs Bunny's Birthday Blowout
Captain Skyhawk
Castlevania
Castlevania II: Simon's Quest
Caveman Games
Chip 'n Dale: Rescue Rangers (both of them) (easy but others consider it hard)
Contra (one life, no deaths) (easy but others consider it hard)
Darkwing Duck
Duck Tales (both of them) (easy but others consider it hard)
Fantasy Zone
Fester's Quest
Hoops
Joe & Mac
Journey to Silius
Jurassic Park
Kabuku Quantum Fighter
Kirby's Adventure
Legend of Zelda
Legendary Wings
Life Force
Little Nemo: The Dream Master
Marble Madness (easy but others consider it hard)
Mega Man (All six of them) (most are easy but others consider them hard)
Mickey's Mousecapade
Milon's Secret Castle
Mike Tyson's Punch-Out!!
Ninja Gaiden (one life, no deaths)
Punch-Out!!
Puss 'n Boots: Pero's Great Adventure
Rad Gravity
Snake Rattle 'n Roll
Snow Brothers
Star Tropics
Super C (one life, no deaths) (easy but others consider it hard)
Super Mario Bros. (All three of them) (easy but rofl some people actually consider them hard)
TaleSpin
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles III: The Manhattan Project
The Simpsons (All three of them)
Tiny Toon Adventures (both of them) (second game is easy pie)
Trog
Who Framed Roger Rabbit?
Zelda II: Adventures of Link

Already on my 'To Do' list: (Games I've never beaten but consider worthy enough to try to beat)
Adventures of Lolo 3
Adventure Island
Batman
Battletoads & Double Dragon (Yep, I can beat Battletoads but not this one)
Bubble Bobble (I've beaten the DOS version of Bubble Bobble. Haven't really played the NES version)
Castlevania III: Dracula's Curse (Can get pretty far but never beaten on any path. Goal would be to beat on all paths.)
Double Dragon (All three games. Never beat any of them. Come the closest with the second game)
Dragon Warrior series (never played them)
Final Fantasy (believe it or not, never played it)
Gauntlet
Ghost Lion
Ghosts 'n Goblins (I can beat the arcade game but the NES version differs somewhat and haven't played the NES version much)
Gradius
Ice Climber (can get pretty far but not beat)
Isolated Warrior
Krusty's Fun House (I've beaten the SNES Krusty's Super Fun House. Never played this one)
Metal Gear (haven't played it much)
Metroid (haven't played it much)
Ninja Gaiden II & III (never beaten the sequels)
Paperboy (I don't think I've beaten this. I know I've beaten SNES Paperboy 2 though. I haven't played this one much)
Rampage (I'll need extremely good luck and dedication to beat this one!)
River City Ransom
Rygar (never played it)
Silver Surfer (never played it)
Star Tropics II: Zoda's Revenge (never played it)
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles II: The Arcade Game (never played it)
Tom and Jerry
Xevious (never played it)

So with that out of the way, any recommendations for NES games I should add to my "To do" list? Games that are classically hard, which are beatable (no never-ending cycling last levels), and that are actually worth playing? For example, many Wisdom Tree/Colordreams games are hard but for all the wrong reasons and not worth playing, in addition to being expensive and rare games. Conan is hard but sucks because the controls totally suck, and thus isn't worth playing. Athena is hard but sucks because of lousy gameplay. Roadrunner is hard but sucks as it's basically memorize and take the correct paths which you must already know beforehand.

I legitimately think Rampage is one of the hardest NES games ever made, if you do it 1-player and don't use continues. Can anyone think of a legitimately harder NES game than Rampage?

I didn't see Blaster Master. Do it up.

Kid Niki Radical Ninja without continues. The first NES game I ever defeated.

Guardian Legend Difficulty 5 - Really solid adventure game that combines top-down Legend of Zelda exploration with space shooter segments. Not super-hard, but worth playing because it's good.

Robowarrior Difficulty 7 - I have a bit of a vendetta against this game since I could never get past the first level as a kid. If I'd had the instructions I would have known that some levels loop infinitely until you find a special item. It's essentially a slightly grittier Bomberman, so I guess it's like the Xbox360 reboot that everyone makes fun of before that was actually a thing. It's an alright game, but it has a bunch of mechanics that make it way harder to beat then it should be. First off your health constantly dwindles so you need to constantly seek out health refills. Your bombs both do massive damage to yourself, they pretty much kill you unless you're at full health, and they added a mechanic where your bombs push you backwards when you drop them so it's easy to push yourself into a corner. You're constantly getting assaulted by endlessly spawning enemies that often fly in at weird angles so it's impossible to conserve health by never getting hit. An important factor is finding and conserving items for later levels, especially the dark levels. which are pitch black unless lighted up temporarily by a candle or permanently by a lantern. If you run out your run is essentially over. Also you can continue from your last level if you run out of lives, but you lose half your items and your score resets which is a big deal because your attack and defense is tied to your score so good luck taking on later enemies with level one strength. I've never had the patience to beat it.

Section Z Difficulty 5 - Fun shooter that has an adventure element due to branching paths. On the easier side for NES shooters.

Star Force Difficulty 9 - Probably the hardest NES game I own. It's also probably one of the hardest shmups ever made. The controls are stiff, but I wouldn't call them bad. Enemies are quick and attack relentlessly. Bullets are small and easy to lose in the backgrounds. I know It all sounds standard fare for shmups, but you really need to play it to get a sense of the difficulty. The game is very repetitive though so it may not be much fun to play though, but it is a super difficult game. Interestingly this is one of those cases where the US release was made harder than the Japanese original.

Tecmo Cup Soccer Game difficulty 4 - Not to be confused with Tecmo World Cup Soccer this was the series that Squaresoft ripped off when they put blitzball into Final Fantasy X. If you're not familiar it's a SRPG soccer game. You play through a local league and then assemble a team to take on the World Cup. I have a soft spot for this game because I played it a lot as a kid and it looked really cool because instead of small sprites it used giant portraits which looked really impressive. The only major issue I have is that the game doesn't have a real time layout of the field so you constantly have to pause into the pass screen to see where you are on the field and where everyone else is. Check out videos of the Japanese version because it was based on an anime and they gave it a complete graphical overhaul for the US.

@thebitterroost
@DoctorStrongbad
@Jercurpac

Excellent suggestions! See this is why it's good to get others' advice because they can easily tell you stuff you've overlooked.

Blaster Master, Kid Niki Radical Ninja, Guardian Legend, Robowarrior, Section Z, Star Force, and Tecmo Cup Soccer Game I will have to look into.

Also I should probably add the Ikari Warriors games -- I seem to remember those being somewhat hard and I haven't beaten those.

@DoctorStrongbad I'm surprised your first game beaten wasn't something like Super Mario Bros. 2. That's a very easy game but not like boringly easy. I remember I first beat it with Princess, then with Toad, then Mario, and finally Luigi. And yes that's back in the days when it was Princess Toadstool instead of Peach. And yes someone will probably chime in and say the Japanese always called her Peach in Japan. I know. But I'm not Japanese.

Gimmick!

fun mechanic, hidden secrets, pretty visuals and a great soundtrack using an advanced sound chip. just make sure to play the jp version

Another classic difficult shmup is 1943. Well done arcade port.

It must've been slightly weird for the Japanese dudes programming a game where an unstoppable American biplane is blasting the shit out of your parents' generation.

At 9/3/15 03:38 PM, NeonSpider wrote: @DoctorStrongbad I'm surprised your first game beaten wasn't something like Super Mario Bros. 2. That's a very easy game but not like boringly easy. I remember I first beat it with Princess, then with Toad, then Mario, and finally Luigi. And yes that's back in the days when it was Princess Toadstool instead of Peach.

When I first had my NES, my friends told me that Kid Niki: Radical Ninja was unbeatable. I played that game nonstop until I beat it. Starting off with a harder game, makes the easy ones even easier. lol

At 9/3/15 09:41 PM, thebitterroost wrote: Another classic difficult shmup is 1943. Well done arcade port.

It must've been slightly weird for the Japanese dudes programming a game where an unstoppable American biplane is blasting the shit out of your parents' generation.

How similar is that to the arcade game? I dislike the arcade game 1943 due to the constant health pickup requirement and also due to you typically have to choose between a powerup and health and you should pretty much just always go with health but a stray shot will change it to some other powerup you didn't want. There's also a special attack which pretty much just rapid drains your health and thus is pretty much never worth using except you have to use it to slow down the bosses to kill them in time so catch-22. And your health isn't even refilled between levels.

I like 1942, but not 1943. And yeah I've not beaten 1942 NES so may as well add that one.

1942 arcade: Limited lives, one hit.
1943 arcade: One life but has a health bar which constantly drains relatively fast. Run out of life either from enemy hits or simply over time = game over.

At 9/3/15 07:38 PM, Cubone wrote: Gimmick!

fun mechanic, hidden secrets, pretty visuals and a great soundtrack using an advanced sound chip. just make sure to play the jp version

I'd prefer to just stick with American releases. Unlicensed games are fine, although most of those, apart from the ones produced by Tengen, are crap, and also tend to be expensive. Do I care to invest in something like, say, Caltron 6-in-1? Not really.

At 9/4/15 02:33 AM, NeonSpider wrote: I like 1942, but not 1943. And yeah I've not beaten 1942 NES so may as well add that one.

1942 arcade: Limited lives, one hit.
1943 arcade: One life but has a health bar which constantly drains relatively fast. Run out of life either from enemy hits or simply over time = game over.

I agree that 1943 arcade version constantly draining health is annoying. I do not like that handicap in any game.

At 9/4/15 11:26 AM, DoctorStrongbad wrote: I agree that 1943 arcade version constantly draining health is annoying. I do not like that handicap in any game.

I'm not a fan of the Gauntlet Legends arcade game for that exact reason. You get hit by enemies? You lose health. You don't get hit by enemies? You still lose health. How do you get health back? By finding it in exact locations or, more specifically, just already knowing exactly where to go and psychically always taking the correct paths, with no deviation from this allowed. Other way to get health back? Pump in more quarters, lol. Basically one of those later arcade games designed not for the skill-minded player but just to get people pumping in a bunch of quarters, to reward high scores to whoever put in the most and so forth.

Arcade games went downhill once they started pulling that stuff. Any arcade game which doesn't reset score on continue is badly designed. Any arcade game which overly rewards putting in additional money is badly designed.

At 9/4/15 11:33 AM, NeonSpider wrote: I'm not a fan of the Gauntlet Legends arcade game for that exact reason. You get hit by enemies? You lose health. You don't get hit by enemies? You still lose health. Pump in more quarters, lol. Basically one of those later arcade games designed not for the skill-minded player but just to get people pumping in a bunch of quarters, to reward high scores to whoever put in the most and so forth.

I totally agree with you. When Gauntlet was ported to the NES they kept the same mechanic.

Arcade games went downhill once they started pulling that stuff. Any arcade game which doesn't reset score on continue is badly designed. Any arcade game which overly rewards putting in additional money is badly designed.

That was a major decline for Arcades.

At 9/4/15 02:33 AM, NeonSpider wrote: How similar is that to the arcade game?

Similar enough, but they do tone down a lot of those factors that you talked about. Your fuel/health drains, but at a more reasonable pace, you assign attribute points so you can balance the ship more to your playstyle, further attribute points are scattered throughout the game in secret locations that you shoot to reveal, and a much more reasonable amount of health is replenished at the end of each level. Since the NES release's goal was to sell copies rather than milk quarters out of you, I think they consciously eased up on that kind of thing. (That was the case with a lot of NES ports. Double Dragon also comes to mind as being unforgivingly cheap/difficult in the arcade, then seriously toned down for the console release.)

The lightning move is still shit, though.

At 9/5/15 12:49 AM, thebitterroost wrote: Similar enough, but they do tone down a lot of those factors that you talked about. Your fuel/health drains, but at a more reasonable pace

The NES version is superior to the arcade.

Double Dragon also comes to mind as being unforgivingly cheap/difficult in the arcade, then seriously toned down for the console release.)

The NES version of Double Dragon is also superior. Nintendo did a good job of making games that were improved over arcade version. Another reason why arcades began to lose popularity.

At 9/5/15 12:49 AM, thebitterroost wrote:

At 9/4/15 02:33 AM, NeonSpider wrote: How similar is that to the arcade game?

Similar enough, but they do tone down a lot of those factors that you talked about. Your fuel/health drains, but at a more reasonable pace, you assign attribute points so you can balance the ship more to your playstyle, further attribute points are scattered throughout the game in secret locations that you shoot to reveal, and a much more reasonable amount of health is replenished at the end of each level. Since the NES release's goal was to sell copies rather than milk quarters out of you, I think they consciously eased up on that kind of thing. (That was the case with a lot of NES ports. Double Dragon also comes to mind as being unforgivingly cheap/difficult in the arcade, then seriously toned down for the console release.)

The lightning move is still shit, though.

Fair enough. Being that they are difficult games I should probably add it. I mean I include Gauntlet which does the same health-draining one-life thing. They are difficult NES games, they are beatable, and therefore I should try to beat them. No one said this was going to be easy.

Although I will say after having extensive arcade training, some of these NES ports are seeming a whole lot easier. I remember 1942 as being unforgivable and yet I'm pretty sure I'll actually beat the NES 1942 shortly. I gave it a try and it's like holy crap is this so much easier than the arcade. I should probably try to beat 1942 before 1943. It seems the primary difficulty is just not that any one level is difficult per-se but mostly how many levels you have to get through on a few lives.

At 9/5/15 01:13 AM, DoctorStrongbad wrote: Nintendo did a good job of making games that were improved over arcade version. Another reason why arcades began to lose popularity.

Really? I tend to think (and I'm pretty sure the general consensus used to be back in the day) that arcade games were better, and that's why people would go to the arcades instead of play the ports on their NES/SNES/Genesis, if they had the option. They were typically harder, although some NES games were hard enough.

As hard as the NES Double Dragon is, if you say the arcade version is harder (which is probably accurate), I'm not sure how I can even touch that. I can't even beat the NES version. Though the Double Dragon games always had kind of wonky controls.

NES Legendary Wings is quite easy to me but the arcade game hands me my ass on a silver platter. Plus in the arcade game you lose all powerups after each level. Seriously. I think I've gotten to maybe the third level arcade. NES version I can beat.

At 9/5/15 10:13 AM, mysticvortex13 wrote: i take it you've beaten crystalis just like doctorstrongbad did?

Yes, It is a great classic NES game.

vice: project doom is also pretty hard to complete by your standards of "zero game overs", even if it's easy to complete by my standards of "all enemies and destructable scenery and items collected/broken".

Yes, it is hard to 100% Vice: Project Doom

At 9/5/15 04:54 PM, DoctorStrongbad wrote:

At 9/5/15 10:13 AM, mysticvortex13 wrote: i take it you've beaten crystalis just like doctorstrongbad did?

Yes, It is a great classic NES game.

vice: project doom is also pretty hard to complete by your standards of "zero game overs", even if it's easy to complete by my standards of "all enemies and destructable scenery and items collected/broken".

Yes, it is hard to 100% Vice: Project Doom

I've never heard of crystalis and thus never played nor beaten it. I'll have to check it out.

Never heard of Vice: Project Doom either, so ditto.

And @mysticvortex13 I'll unblock you, but you can't be accusing me anymore of supporting dangerous acts I would never support. That's not cool. No matter how heated an argument gets, that is unjustified.

Chrystalis is indeed an awesome game, but I didn't find it to be too difficult. It's zelda-like with more RPG elements and a non-gridded world map.

Although it has its fair share of annoying quirks, another top-down action-RPG that was pretty difficult was the Willow game.

There was also a challenging Zelda II clone called The Battle of Olympus. Use a map for the maze areas like the forest, they're convoluted to the point of being poorly designed.

At 9/5/15 10:45 PM, mysticvortex13 wrote: now.. if we can get back to your thread's subject, i still have yet to hear about whether you played dr. chaos or power blade. you only saw what doctorstrongbad quoted.

I have not played nor hear of Dr. Chaos.

As for Power Blade, I believe I've beaten it before but it's been a while.
I don't think I've beaten Power Blade 2 though.

At 9/6/15 12:18 AM, mysticvortex13 wrote: for the record, i can personally complete any standard zelda game without a hassle. no game overs. not so with crystalis.

If you're including the original NES Legend of Zelda in that, that's pretty good. Though a popular game it is also a hard game, especially if you don't allow for continues, and including both quests, back-to-back, and especially that second quest.

The other "standard" Zelda games were easier than the original. And Zelda II isn't a "standard" Zelda but is quite different in gameplay from the others.

At 9/3/15 09:05 AM, NeonSpider wrote: Super Mario Bros. (All three of them) (easy but rofl some people actually consider them hard)

So are you just including them in your list to be pretentious? If they're easy they don't fit the qualifications for your list.

At 9/6/15 02:42 AM, sharpnova wrote:

At 9/3/15 09:05 AM, NeonSpider wrote: Super Mario Bros. (All three of them) (easy but rofl some people actually consider them hard)

So are you just including them in your list to be pretentious? If they're easy they don't fit the qualifications for your list.

They indeed fit If you read the qualifications . They fit under that "unless" exception. And the reason I include that is because there are a number of easy games that, for whatever reasons, people commonly consider as hard. And I don't need 100 well-meaning but novice gamers recommending to me Super Mario Bros. 3 because it's "the hardest game ever". And if I didn't include some of the commonly considered "hard" games (that aren't hard at all) then yes that is exactly what would have happened.

I have heard quite a number of people over the years say that Super Mario Bros. is a hard game and especially more who say that Super Mario Bros. 3 is when in fact they're both very entry-level games. It immediately makes me dismiss that person's opinion of game difficulties, but there are well-meaning people who would genuinely find those games hard.

I shouldn't have to lower my standards to "average". I'm far above average in quite a number of areas and always have been. It's not pretentious if it's true. You could accurately claim I'm elitist in some areas. I wouldn't argue against that.

Truth is everyone should have higher standards than they do. My standards aren't too high. Many people's standards are simply too low. But that's common in an age where everyone just expects everything handed to them these days.

I have skills and there's nothing wrong with building skills.

At 9/6/15 12:29 AM, NeonSpider wrote:
If you're including the original NES Legend of Zelda in that, that's pretty good. Though a popular game it is also a hard game, especially if you don't allow for continues, and including both quests, back-to-back, and especially that second quest.

The other "standard" Zelda games were easier than the original. And Zelda II isn't a "standard" Zelda but is quite different in gameplay from the others.

Zelda one and two are both classic games that everybody should and beat. They are both challenging depending on your play style.

At 9/6/15 04:53 AM, NeonSpider wrote:
I have heard quite a number of people over the years say that Super Mario Bros. is a hard game and especially more who say that Super Mario Bros. 3 is when in fact they're both very entry-level games. It immediately makes me dismiss that person's opinion of game difficulties, but there are well-meaning people who would genuinely find those games hard.

So you're a child.

I shouldn't have to lower my standards to "average". I'm far above average in quite a number of areas and always have been. It's not pretentious if it's true. You could accurately claim I'm elitist in some areas. I wouldn't argue against that.

Something tells me you're not above anyone.

Truth is everyone should have higher standards than they do. My standards aren't too high. Many people's standards are simply too low. But that's common in an age where everyone just expects everything handed to them these days.

So everyone except you should have higher standards than they do. Gotcha.

I have skills and there's nothing wrong with building skills.

There's something wrong with acting childish about skills you think you have. You strike me as an autist.

At 9/6/15 06:42 PM, sharpnova wrote:

At 9/6/15 04:53 AM, NeonSpider wrote:
I have heard quite a number of people over the years say that Super Mario Bros. is a hard game and especially more who say that Super Mario Bros. 3 is when in fact they're both very entry-level games. It immediately makes me dismiss that person's opinion of game difficulties, but there are well-meaning people who would genuinely find those games hard.

So you're a child.

No. But clearly you have sub-par standards if you take issue with this and you're in the wrong thread so kindly dismiss yourself.

I shouldn't have to lower my standards to "average". I'm far above average in quite a number of areas and always have been. It's not pretentious if it's true. You could accurately claim I'm elitist in some areas. I wouldn't argue against that.

Something tells me you're not above anyone.

Oh yeah? What is that? Clearly you're wrong because clearly I have top percent video game skills, top percent academic skills (I have long since obtained my university degree, but back in the days I frequently broke curves where most of the rest of the class failed, I excelled on standardized testing, A-student, accepted to literally every university I ever applied to and received offers from several I never applied to, etc...). Oh and I didn't have the financial advantages a lot of other people had either. I have many other talents as well. I'm not good at absolutely everything but I sure as hell am above-average or better at a great many things -- above average tends to be my starting point so even without trying I'm already better than average typically.

Truth is everyone should have higher standards than they do. My standards aren't too high. Many people's standards are simply too low. But that's common in an age where everyone just expects everything handed to them these days.

So everyone except you should have higher standards than they do. Gotcha.

I have skills and there's nothing wrong with building skills.

There's something wrong with acting childish about skills you think you have. You strike me as an autist.

Correction -- skills I do have. And so it's autistic to have skills now? You're just saying that because you're probably one of the countless peons who just pay their way through everything in life or whine until the bar is lowered to your level. Well tough shit because I'm above that. I highly suggest you go elsewhere because this thread is clearly beyond your abilities. Go play some easy newschool games. That's more suited for you.

I'm very skill-oriented. You're just jealous.

At 9/7/15 12:54 AM, NeonSpider wrote:

I shouldn't have to lower my standards to "average". I'm far above average in quite a number of areas and always have been. It's not pretentious if it's true. You could accurately claim I'm elitist in some areas. I wouldn't argue against that.

*smells a windfall of reddit karma incoming*

Oh yeah? What is that? Clearly you're wrong because clearly I have top percent video game skills, top percent academic skills (I have long since obtained my university degree, but back in the days I frequently broke curves where most of the rest of the class failed, I excelled on standardized testing, A-student, accepted to literally every university I ever applied to and received offers from several I never applied to, etc...). Oh and I didn't have the financial advantages a lot of other people had either. I have many other talents as well. I'm not good at absolutely everything but I sure as hell am above-average or better at a great many things -- above average tends to be my starting point so even without trying I'm already better than average typically.

Yep. This is textbook /r/iamverysmart material.

I have skills and there's nothing wrong with building skills.

Ahh. You overlooked the logic of that particular point. Guess logic is not one of the areas you excel in.

Correction -- skills I do have. And so it's autistic to have skills now? You're just saying that because you're probably one of the countless peons who just pay their way through everything in life or whine until the bar is lowered to your level. Well tough shit because I'm above that. I highly suggest you go elsewhere because this thread is clearly beyond your abilities. Go play some easy newschool games. That's more suited for you.

You made a bunch of assumptions about me that aren't true but... I just don't care lol. Your opinion is worthless.

At 9/7/15 09:26 AM, sharpnova wrote: Yep. This is textbook /r/iamverysmart material.

Actually I am very smart. If you meant that sarcastically, sorry to disappoint.

Ahh. You overlooked the logic of that particular point. Guess logic is not one of the areas you excel in.

It sure is. I guess to you one must have no skills in order to have logic, logic and skills being mutually-exclusive in your mind. I'm sorry but I'm not the one who fails at logic here, bucko. Move on to some other thread then because clearly this is not your forté.

You made a bunch of assumptions about me that aren't true but... I just don't care lol. Your opinion is worthless.

Assumptions? No. You came into my thread complaining about something which wasn't even incorrect on my part. I clearly explained the criteria. You then replied with a bunch of jealousy. And as a matter of fact it is your opinion on the matter which is worthless because if we look at your review history we clearly see you rating down games with explanation of essentially "it's too hard" so clearly you are one of those who lacks skill and would rather everyone lower the bar than for you to actually become better at something.

And if we look at your game medals we see that although you have played a tremendous amount of medal games, you do not have a single difficult medal game with all medals completed. Since this is a topic of skill, which clearly you lack, and for which clearly you are jealous of those who have, I reiterate please go play some modern games on some modern system so you don't actually have to try to "achieve" things.

I on the other hand have quite a few full medal games on quite difficult games because I, unlike you, actually enjoy a challenge which is exactly what this thread is asking for -- personal challenges for me to attempt. It isn't a thread for people, such as yourself, who dislike challenge. Go whine elsewhere.

At 9/7/15 11:12 AM, NeonSpider wrote: Actually I am very smart. If you meant that sarcastically, sorry to disappoint.

I handed you a shovel and you threw it to the side and dove ego first into a john deere

I guess to you one must have no skills in order to have logic, logic and skills being mutually-exclusive in your mind.

I never implied this. If you'd stop digging your grave of internet embarrassment (aka immortality) you might realize everything you're assuming and claiming is false.

my thread

lol. This is Tom Fulp's thread and I've contacted him with recommendations of hiring a lawyer to sue you for attempted theft.

You then replied with a bunch of jealousy.

The only thing I might be jealous of with regards to you is how famous you are on reddit right now. Not really. I wouldn't want this type of attention.

And as a matter of fact it is your opinion on the matter which is worthless because if we look at your review history we clearly see you rating down games with explanation of essentially "it's too hard"

Nah I'm a hardcore gamer that has done things you will never be able to do.

And if we look at your game medals

Holy crap.. I will NOT have sex with you, stalker.

I've beaten anything on any game worth beating. And there's no game on newgrounds that has a medal that rewards skill that I couldn't get easily. I'm better at every game ever made than you are.

*throws ten pieces of popcorn 5 miles into the air and leans back with mouth open and dozes off in anticipation of your anguished reply*

p.s. the popcorn is going to land perfectly in my mouth because my skills at popcorn throwing are far beyond yours

At 9/7/15 11:32 AM, sharpnova wrote: I handed you a shovel and you threw it to the side and dove ego first into a john deere

What you handed me was a steaming pile of shit which I rightly discarded.

I guess to you one must have no skills in order to have logic, logic and skills being mutually-exclusive in your mind.

I never implied this. If you'd stop digging your grave of internet embarrassment (aka immortality) you might realize everything you're assuming and claiming is false.

Nah. It's good to know you care that much about a thread the subject of which you supposedly don't care anything about. And that you got that angry because of your own lack of skill and the presence of skill in others you felt the need to "immortalize" this. Congrats on having no skills.

my thread

lol. This is Tom Fulp's thread and I've contacted him with recommendations of hiring a lawyer to sue you for attempted theft.

Holy shit. Are you seriously that retarded? You don't even know the difference between a thread and a forum or message board? Just stop using the Internet.

The only thing I might be jealous of with regards to you is how famous you are on reddit right now. Not really. I wouldn't want this type of attention.

lol. Like I care. Famous? Nah.

And as a matter of fact it is your opinion on the matter which is worthless because if we look at your review history we clearly see you rating down games with explanation of essentially "it's too hard"

Nah I'm a hardcore gamer that has done things you will never be able to do.

You really aren't and you really haven't. You're out of your league, son.

And if we look at your game medals

Holy crap.. I will NOT have sex with you, stalker.

Funny how you deny the reason you're mad at a skill-based request is your lack of skills. To be fair I looked through your medals to see if indeed you had any skills which, much to my original thinking, you did not. So yes, clearly you are one of those who either just pays his way through everything in life *or* just whines until bars are lowered and you get your way.

You're essentially a full-grown spoiled brat.

I've beaten anything on any game worth beating. And there's no game on newgrounds that has a medal that rewards skill that I couldn't get easily. I'm better at every game ever made than you are.

No you really haven't. Stop lying. Anyone can just check this for themselves anyway, which I encourage anyone to. He hasn't a single game of skill with full medals despite having a tremendous amount of medals games played.

I'm not immune to making a jab at someone every once in a while (like ya do on the interwebs), but guys, it's turning into this: