The great debate

>>377587079
Zero

Classic. Sure they were milked but they were all pretty ok. X had 1, 2, and 4 and that's it.

Battle Network, then Legends, then classic, then probably Zero, then X.

Starforce

>>377587079
megaman, X had better individual games but also such shitty ones. Original was consistent for the most part.

>>377587079
I want to say classic but it didn't changed that much between games
X dropped the ball later but the series was improving with each game until then

Zero = BN = SF > Legends > Classic > X

>>377587079
X has the best game in the entire series, X1. X2,and X3 were good, X4 and X8 were above average. Classic has better consistency though.

>>377587079
Classic's 4 5 and 6 weren't terrible while I wouldn't recommend X6 or X7 to my worst enemy.

>>377587079
X has like 4 legitimately good games and a bunch of shit. Megaman has at least 6 good games and the rest are mediocre.

>>377587152
/thread.

>>377587353
Zero, Battle Network, and Legends doesn't get enough love.

>>377587208
4 catches too much shit, it's still a great game and people grasp at straws trying to call it shit.

Classic for sure. At worst they were just bland carbon copies, and not indefensible garbage like some of the X series was.

Which is a shame, because I think X1 is better than any classic title.

File: laduyhbop.jpg (168KB, 524x649px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 524x649px

>>377587765
>Battle Network doesn't get enough love

Nigga, there have been at least 12 Battle Network games. It has received nothing BUT love from capcom because it was their handheld cashcow go-to game for almost 10 years.

>>377587079
Classic's games were all either above average or decent. None of the games were objectively bad. While X's games ranged from good to unplayable. I think it's pretty obvious classic wins in terms of consistent quality.

X

ZX

>>377587882
Yeah, I prefer X but it's lows are much lower than classic's lows.

>>377587353
No ZX?

>>377587079
Classic because X5-X7 exists

Classic wins basically by default because aside from some of the questionable Game Boy titles (MM II in particular) they all are at least worth a play.

X on the other hand kind of just tumbled down the hill after X2 and never truly recovered, even if games like X8 are decent.

I'd put Battle Network into the second place in terms of quality despite indefensible garbage like BN4, or how dated BN1 is.

All Zero and ZX titles are pretty good too (even with Zero 1's faults and ZX's map) though they, along with Legends, have fewer games so it might be a bit of an unfair comparison.

Star Force got better with each title, though the third game is the only worthwhile one.

>>377587079
As others said classic. I don't care how good X1 is, the X series has irredeemable shit way worse than the good X brought.

>>377589358
Starforce 1 was better than 2

is best classic just 8?

>>377587079
Classic, there's really no outright bad games unlike X.
I still prefer the X series myself.

>>377589775
No its 3 or 9

>>377589759
As far as story and such go, sure, but I found SF1's overworld much more cumbersome to travel than SF2's.

Other than that I think the chip library and such were a tiny bit better in SF2, but the battle gameplay didn't really get up to speed until SF3.

>>377589948
Really? Personally I loathed navigating the overworld in 2 because the encounter rate was so awful. I found the puzzles far more annoying too.

>>377590147
Yeah, the encounter rate was on a pretty high end, I must admit.

One thing I also disliked about SF1 that they rectified for SF2 is that the key items you use to do various stuff on the map were behind a simple menu, as opposed to toggle scrollable on the upper screen with select button or something.