Diehard Turtle fans see greatness. Others see an average brawler.

To be honest, though... the reason Turtles in Time isn't hard is because it's on the console and not the Arcade.

Then what does that say about other arcade to console translations such as Golden Axe and Bad Dudes? I remember the former especially being about as hard as the arcade. Of course, it was possible to beat them both without continuing and even without dying. But I do not see either of those games just as easy as TMNT: Turtles in Time. It's almost universally agreed that it was way too easy on the hard mode even for a side scrolling brawler on consoles.
 
In the Arcade beat 'em ups were made to be hard (and sometimes a test of luck) because the idea was to get you to spend a bunch of quarters.

Turtles in Time is one of the few games out there that is almost a complete replica of the arcade version. So if I point out that the console version is vastly easier then what harm am I doing, especially when you have so many continues on the console version?

This was made in 1992 in an era where the Arcade was diminishing (at least Beat 'em Ups were--the entire genre was nearly dead at this point, but the fighter had just dawned so the Arcade still had life in it) and the home console was thriving. And one of the things that kept going forward was that games were getting easier.

Agreed there. But was Punisher & Nick Fury just as easy or easier for the console than Turtles in Time? And that was released on consoles afterwards. I for one don't think so at all. So pointing out it was too easy for a side scrolling brawler on a console isn't offbase at all.

 As far as I'm concerned Beat 'em Ups on the console are never hard.

And I haven't come across any Beat'em Up on the console as easy as this.

I've never seen the game over screen in a beat 'em up game to this day.

And as long as you can continue then you probably never will. Turtles in Time was the very first home console brawler I mastered without dying on my second play through. I didn't touch the game for nearly 20 years until I played it to write this review. And I didn't continue at all on either mode. I couldn't say the same for Streets of Rage 2, Final Fight or Captain America and the Avengers after not playing those for the same amount of time.

Final Fight, The Pirates of Dark Water, those Power Ranger beat 'em ups, Double Dragon and Streets of Rage I also found to be... equally as easy as Turtles in Time.

Well, I wouldn't touch anything Power Rangers with a ten foot pole so I never played it and never will. And I for one just can't believe you or anyone truly believes that Final Fight or Streets of Rage is just as easy as this. I don't know which Double Dragon you're referring to, so I'm leaving that open.

All easily completed even on their higher difficulty settings in about thirty minutes or so. And Turtles IV was no different. After about thirty minutes it's over (on Hard mode). But that was pretty standard fare for the genre, I think. Like I said, I can't think of the last beat 'em up that lasted for much longer than that.

This isn't about how fast you, I, or Jimmy Jack Jericho can finish these games on whatever difficulty. It's about actually noticing a higher challenge when you increase the difficulty in these games. Streets of Rage 1, 2, Golden Axe, and whatever else I mentioned. When you increase the difficulty, you see a difference; ie, smarter AI, much tougher bosses etc. You don't see that in this game to where it really matters except for ONE boss battle and that's my point. If you can run through Streets of Rage II in 30 minutes good for you. It took lots of practice to get there. This game, really none at all. And I'm standing by that.

 But I've also never heard of it referred to as the "greatest Brawler ever,"

From professional magazines.... Neither have I. From reviews written by different people who love the game, many times. And since you hang on amazon I find it very hard to believe you never heard that before.

As for the $200. Yeah, I'm sure SOMEONE is out there selling it for that much, but there is ALWAYS a SNES game floating out there for that kind of money

I'm not talking about those other games, I'm talking about this (I'll get to them whenever). And someone on a discussion board stated that they did pay that kind of money for this game because it was so amazing. Whether the person is lying or not is not my concern. The fact is someone said that insinuating that this game is worth $200, and I seen it being sold for that much. I'm throwing out there that there's no way this game is worth that much. If my detailed review can help someone starstruck by the 5 star absolute perfection reviews save 200 bucks, or even 20 bucks, and put it to a game I think is far superior and worth their time, then I fulfilled my obligation as a person writing customer reviews.

But to me the Brawler is kind of a genre that is enjoyed for nostalgia.

Playing a game out of nostalgia is one thing, reviewing it with nostalgia in your heart is another. Yeah, I had some good memories with this game playing with friends, my ex, etc. But I feel a person who reviews and rates a product with their opinion clouded by nostalgia is doing a diservice to the paying customer. I disregard nostalgia completely in my reviews, and give reasons galore as well as examples on why I feel the way I do. And I always felt Turtles in Time was a lackluster brawler. Why? Because I felt I played far better during the brawlers heyday, and I recommend those games to anyone who may have missed them.

 I don't recall the last time I played a Brawler thinking it was making new advancements.

In this day and age, I can't either. Back then around 91-92? I already listed two in my review; Streets of Rage 2 and Vendetta. Both of those games improved a great deal over Double Dragon which is said to have laid the superior groundwork, which was actually influenced by Renegade. The former featured four different characters with distinct fighting styles that carried over to the way they used their weapons. The latter mainly improved over Crimefighters, with four different characters with different styles, that also had a different way to pummel a downed opponent; such as one character punching a down guy to death, while another dropped an elbow on them killing them even faster. To include, you were able to shoot downed opponents with a pump shotgun. This was in 1992, and there was a good amount of innovation. Turtles in Time features almost nothing new to the genre, and I pointed these things out and I compared the game to others in its genre. If I didn't like the game as much as you and others because of its lack of innovation.... So what?

Scott Pilgrim was a cool game I do need to play again. But my issue with this game consist of the things I already covered. Turtles in Time is average to me. I didn't say it was the worst, or even if it was a bad game. I gave it +3, but I believe all the games I recommended over it are much better, and not only because of difficulty, but because of all the other enhancements to the game play, in which I feel is lacking here.

I didn't say you said it was bad.  I just meant that I had a very different and strange experience.  And I only brought up other brawlers to draw comparisons.  My problem (and I do mean my problem) is that I'm fairly biased when it comes to Brawlers because to me a great deal of them are the same experience time and time again.  Turtles gives fan service but I didn't see it as being much above and beyond any other brawler I ever played (in other words, I'm in agreement with the idea that it's pretty average, I just don't think that's necessarily a mark against a game).

But in terms of the Arcade, there were quite a few differences to the Arcade vs. the Console version of this.  At least last time I played the Arcade version it felt a little harder than the console, but for reasons that were mainly due to how some Arcade games had worked (the Turtles games always tried to fill the screen with more enemies depending on how many players there were... if you were with a team of four and three dropped out, the game still registered four players). 

I didn't mean to make it sound angry or anything like that.  I wasn't also trying to step on anything in your review.  I just meant that my experience was different and some things didn't quite deter me the way they did others.  Because, like I said, I'm very biased and the core experience of most brawlers always had a familiar sense to me.  Again, I'm not expecting much of anyone to care (it's the comments section, after all) it's just pointing out slight differences between my experience and yours.  And I even agree that the games you recommended ARE better.  I suppose I just never saw "average" as really... a deterent is what I was getting at.  But I wasn't suggesting that Turtles had ever actually done anything innovative.  It hadn't, but I when I played it I hadn't really expected much more out of the genre is my point.  It was run of the mill to me.  Again, for my experience (I should point out that I probably played this game at the tail end of '92).  It's definitely fan service.

But when I brought up the 200 dollar thing, my point with that is that your review made it seem as though it is common place to find this game for that much money.  My only point there was that while $200 is insane... it's not common.  I only brought up other video game examples to point out that it also wasn't surprising.  And that price gouging happens.

As for nostalgia, though... I think that's my own thing.  Because, like I said, I'm fairly biased when it comes to the brawler.  Picking them up after a time is usually fun... but exceedingly hard for me to do because the genre as a whole doesn't really entertain me anymore.  I do, however, still have many of my old Brawler games (my personal favorite are actually the Streets of Rage games). 

I wasn't actually trying to argue or anything.  That wasn't the point of my comment.  It was mainly just to express a couple of differences in view and opinion and how my experience always seemed to differ.  I'm just a different type of gamer in that regard. 

 And I only brought up other brawlers to draw comparisons.

That was my exact reason as well. I wanted to point out  that there were better brawlers at the same time that actually brought something to the genre, and I felt had  a higher challenge than this overly easy game.

My problem (and I do mean my problem) is that I'm fairly biased when it comes to Brawlers because to me a great deal of them are the same experience time and time again.

The brawler genre is one that I've always been aggressive towards because it's easy to feel like you're playing the same game (I'm more aggressive against shooters in this regard). Konami were creative when they went into Vendetta. Turtles in Time had very little creativity and has the feel as if it was meant to cash in on the name and it shows.

Turtles gives fan service but I didn't see it as being much above and beyond any other brawler I ever played (in other words, I'm in agreement with the idea that it's pretty average, I just don't think that's necessarily a mark against a game).

Some times it all depends on other things, and for me it's a mark against this game. Especially when you come from a game like Streets of Rage II that has so much more depth. Turtles in Time has four characters that all essentially play the same. What seperates them? Reach, speed, and durability? In 1992? When a game like Golden Axe has more depth to its gameplay than a game like this, then you know somebody took a backwards.

But in terms of the Arcade, there were quite a few differences to the Arcade vs. the Console version of this. At least last time I played the Arcade version it felt a little harder than the console, but for reasons that were mainly due to how some Arcade games had worked (the Turtles games always tried to fill the screen with more enemies depending on how many players there were... if you were with a team of four and three dropped out, the game still registered four players).

The AI was also a little better from what I remember. But I mentioned other reasons why I don't think highly of the game,  not just the difficulty.

Because, like I said, I'm very biased and the core experience of most brawlers always had a familiar sense to me.

They all follow the same beaten path, and this is the reason why I would search for other elements that seperates the game in question from the rest of the pack.

 I suppose I just never saw "average" as really... a deterent is what I was getting at.

So in other words, if you come across an "average" game.... Then you'll rate it a +5 rating in the exact same manner you would do a game that is clearly far above average, superior even, just because you found enjoyment in it?  I can't do that man. If there are things that bother me I have to address them and duct points.

 It hadn't, but I when I played it I hadn't really expected much more out of the genre is my point. It was run of the mill to me. Again, for my experience (I should point out that I probably played this game at the tail end of '92). It's definitely fan service.

I'm always looking to be wowed. Back then and even now. And with so many brawlers that were out there in the market to go off of, I still felt there was some room for improvement. Now although this isn't a brawler, but take Sunset Riders for example. I think it did a decent enough job picking up the run n gun formula when Contra had officially made its exit; it featured some boss battles with unique elements and a moderate challenge. Some consider it very hard for the consoles. My point is, back then especially there was still room for some type of improvement instead of kicking out just a mere cash in on a popular franchise.

But when I brought up the 200 dollar thing, my point with that is that your review made it seem as though it is common place to find this game for that much money. My only point there was that while $200 is insane... it's not common. I only brought up other video game examples to point out that it also wasn't surprising. And that price gouging happens.

Should a person see something being sold for that price in combination with a majority of reviews possessing a 5 star rating, even if there are much lower prices.  Then they're going to be hoodwinked into believing that game is cream of the crop anyway and feel they must have it.  Some people do believe if you see something expensive, then it's automatically excellent. I want people to know this game truly is average and not worth 200 bucks IF they should come across it at that price alone. Personally, I wouldn't pay that kind of money for any game, and that's just me.

 I do, however, still have many of my old Brawler games (my personal favorite are actually the Streets of Rage games).

I still have mine too, and I keep them around for those drunken pow wows to mainly entertain the seriously casual gamers. I'm never going to get rid of them. But in all honesty, I only like Streets of Rage II. The first I don't like at all, the third just don't care for.

I wasn't actually trying to argue or anything.

That is my main pet peeve with online communication. You have to be VERY careful with choosing your words, because anything can be taken out of context. I do a poor job controlling my tone, and come off like I'm fighting when I know that I'm not. I didn't think you were trying to stir up beef, but the way words can appear on the screen, anyone can easily think different.

And sometimes it feels like to me my experience is always different as well.