Support NeoGAF

[Freshmaker]

lol

Killer riposte.

Fact is you can develop skills as you continue as well.

 

[SAB CA]

Is this game better played with the analog stick or d-pad?

Im wondering which console i should buy it for.

It's an arcade game, so it was designed with digital control in mind. The controls are pretty lenient in some ways though (easy buffer windows on moves), so it won't be TOO bad to play with whichever you prefer.

Joystick would be recommended if you have this as an option, since it was an arcade game, and the button layout is designed for 4 button arcade sticks.

These games were never designed to be one shotted. It's just masochism to think that's it's somehow the "true" experience.

Well, the first part is true. Arcade games were made to quarter munch! But the goal of "one shot!" is to play the game with increasingly growing skill; the gamer always aims to play a game better each time they attempt it. (Assuming they care about more than "seeing the end", and trading it in instantly.)

I think Arcades were the best at mixing a desire for skill, and a desire for pure fun, really. Since creators had to hook you, every moment was exciting and full of greatness. No space for tutorial hour 1, or build up that took 30 hours to fully put the pieces together. I feel like a focus on "Superplay or GTFO!" don't really appreciate the all-access side of arcade gaming, much as how "All games should be EASY, I don't wanna have to retry 10 times to beat a boss!" players fail to recognize that perfecting a game is a big part of real replayability.

I'm confused. Is the Japanese port completely independent of the one we're getting?

Yup! The original Developers, different features, different UI, everything but the core game seems to be separate.

 

[Sir Ilpalazzo]

These games were never designed to be one shotted.

They totally were.

I think it really cheapens the game when you're allowed infinite continues. At the very least, it should be like old console beat-em-ups where you only have 1-3 continues (with a cheat allowing you to get more).

 

[Freshmaker]

Well, the first part is true. Arcade games were made to quarter munch! But the goal of "one shot!" is to play the game with increasingly growing skill; the gamer always aims to play a game better each time they attempt it. (Assuming they care about more than "seeing the end", and trading it in instantly.)

People managed to do that on arcade machines with continues available however.

The notion that the continues must be disabled to help players learn to play the game properly is stifling and condescending at the same time.

 

[Weltall Zero]

And while limiting oneself to not using continues is exactly what I and some others do with arcade ports, the notion of avoiding continues is weird enough that these ports should do a better job of encouraging it. A lot of genuinely enthusiastic video game players simply don't realize how possible and completely different these games are when played without continues, and if the ports clearly discouraged continuing (by burying the option in a cheat menu or having continues only work in "training" or whatever), I'd expect to see a better understanding of these games all around.

Indeed. Difficulty breeds the need for mastery and understanding, and much as Devil May Cry is a completely different experience on Easy than on Hard (the later is a much deeper one), playing with infinite continues is simply a different game. A very short-lived one, at that.

Same thing with games like Powerstone, Spikeout, Secret of Mana, PSO, Phantom Dust, or Gauntlet Legends; There's quite a few nice sub-genres of multiplayer gaming that could be explored much more, but in so many years time, we only have 1 big dev + a handful of indies attempt to make progress with these ideas. It's sad, because instead of seeing a genre grow with the times, we see it sit at the last release of "the big one!", while smaller groups try, not to surpass, but simply to reach the success another team already grasped.

It's frankly really sad that, for example, cooperative ARPGs pretty much died with the Mana series. I enjoyed playing the Gamecube Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles a lot, but again, very few games in that mold are created anymore.

The gaming world is pretty "Follow the leader"-like, too; it could be very different, if the right players made a few different steps. Imagine if Final Fantasy XI was a D&D arcade-a-like similar to Dungeon Fighter Online, but made with console gamers in mind? If Squeenix put their resources behind making a Final Fantasy multiplayer ARPG offshoot with online play like this, with well-made playable characters from every Final Fantasy available, we'd have some pretty crazy games + "clones" from other companies by now.

I woudn't trust current Square to find their own arse using both hands.
Anyhow, let's hope that Dragon's Crown ushers in an era of imitators, but I'm afraid 2D gaming has become something for the minorities.

Ugh ugh ugh ugh.

I hate this smarmy "I will tell everyone else how to properly enjoy a game." attitude.

Yea no shit. The game has a no continues mode and people could always you know, NOT CONTINUE.

But no, I CANT BE HAPPY UNLESS EVERYONE ELSE PLAYS HOW I WANT THEM TO PLAY.

Fuck. Right. Off.

Let me ask you guys two simple questions.
1) Do you like Dark Souls?
2) Would you advocate for a selectable Easy Mode?

Continuing isn't really a "cheat", and locking out the casual-favoring feature of Achievements / Trophies due to continues would counter the existence of those features in the first place; You'd basically be forcing a game to play to an even SMALLER audience than those who already play them.

Um, what? Locking some achievements to the most hardcore and dedicated of players is standard behavior for most games, no?

Ultimately, games have to sale, and be presented in desirable ways, in order to have a chance to survive and thrive. Over-catering to the Hardcore by making only the best able to get the real rewards of the game is just a bit too harsh.

Again, Dark Souls seems to have done alright.

(Dark Souls is becoming the new Godwin's Law ).

 

[Risette]

Well, the first part is true. Arcade games were made to quarter munch! But the goal of "one shot!" is to play the game with increasingly growing skill; the gamer always aims to play a game better each time they attempt it. (Assuming they care about more than "seeing the end", and trading it in instantly.)

I think Arcades were the best at mixing a desire for skill, and a desire for pure fun, really. Since creators had to hook you, every moment was exciting and full of greatness. No space for tutorial hour 1, or build up that took 30 hours to fully put the pieces together. I feel like a focus on "Superplay or GTFO!" don't really appreciate the all-access side of arcade gaming, much as how "All games should be EASY, I don't wanna have to retry 10 times to beat a boss!" players fail to recognize that perfecting a game is a big part of real replayability.

The first part isn't true. They are designed to be one-shotted by good players, with the option to allow those who are not good enough to continue and see the content of the rest of the game should they pay up to please arcade ops.

Also, 1CCs aren't superplays by any means. The term "1-sissy" exists for a reason...

 

[Freshmaker]

Let me ask you guys two simple questions.
1) Do you like Dark Souls?

Yes.

2) Would you advocate for a selectable Easy Mode?

I've supported as much in the past. I've never bought into the "but it's so satisfying" BS ever.

 

[Skilletor]

Let me ask you guys two simple questions.
1) Do you like Dark Souls?
2) Would you advocate for a selectable Easy Mode?

Love Dark Souls and sure? I don't have to play it. It doesn't have any impact on my enjoyment.

The first part isn't true. They are designed to be one-shotted by good players, with the option to allow those who are not good enough to continue and see the content of the rest of the game should they pay up to please arcade ops.

Also, 1CCs aren't superplays by any means. The term "1-sissy" exists for a reason...

You say this as if continuing automatically allows me to progress.

 

[Freshmaker]

You say this as if continuing automatically allows me to progress.

Seems to be moot since there's only one way to play these games correctly. Ristette's way.

 

[Skilletor]

Seems to be moot since there's only one way to play these games correctly. Ristette's way.

I'm going to join Risette's games and die on purpose just to use continues.

 

[Risette]

I'm going to join Risette's games and die on purpose just to use continues.

disallowed

 

[Sinatar]

let me ask you guys two simple questions.
1) Do you like Dark Souls?
2) Would you advocate for a selectable Easy Mode?

What an utterly moronic comparison.

Can you continue in the arcade version of the D&D games? Yes.
So what exactly are you getting at?

 

[Tain]

cartman414: It looks that way.

These games were never designed to be one shotted. It's just masochism to think that's it's somehow the "true" experience.

My experiences with piles upon piles of Japanese arcade games make me think that it's extremely likely that the developers of this game intended it to be beatable without continuing. People have enjoyed beating it without continues.

As for you calling me a pervert for considering that the "true" experience, whatever. Regardless even of developer intent (!), every single arcade belt scroll game I have ever played has been way more enjoyable with limited or no continues than infinite continues. If someone tells me they had a bad experience playing Bayonetta and it turns out they played it with Easy Automatic mode or whatever, I'm not going to put much weight into their opinions. Hell, I'm barely even talking about the same game with them. And yet, in these games, many people see unlimited continues as the way that makes sense, are essentially playing with invincibility on without even thinking that another route exists (because no continues is for perverts that love pain and not something that looks tougher than it is, right?). So, sure, I'd like for them to be encouraged by the game ("forced") to play another way.

 

[Weltall Zero]

Yes.

I've supported as much in the past. I've never bought into the "but it's so satisfying" BS ever.

Love Dark Souls and sure? I don't have to play it. It doesn't have any impact on my enjoyment.

Third question, then:
3) Are you aware that the debate on whether or not an Easy mode would be damaging to Dark Souls is a heated and ongoing one, with no definite conclusions, and that the same applies here? Or, put another way, do you realize there are reasons to forbid both an Easy mode in DS and continues in an arcade port? (whether or not you share them).

You say this as if continuing automatically allows me to progress.

Continuing absolutely allows you to progress, on account of 1) you continuing exactly at the same place you died, and 2) continuing damaging nearby enemies. Except for doors, you could literally tape the stick tilted to the right and the continue button on autofire, go take a walk and get back to the "game completed" achievement unlocked.

What an utterly moronic comparison.

Can you continue in the arcade version of the D&D games? Yes.
So what exactly are you getting at?

What an utterly moronic statement.
Can you continue in the arcade version of D&D for free? No.
So what exactly are you getting at?
(your insulting post doesn't deserve more thought than this).

 

[SAB CA]

People managed to do that on arcade machines with continues available however.

The notion that the continues must be disabled to help players learn to play the game properly is stifling and condescending at the same time.

Many a gamer takes the obvious, easy way out though. Games are traded in within the first few days of release because of quick frustration. The new gamers of today aren't the same as the arcade gamers of yesteryear.

The "I tried 10 minutes, got frustrated, and deleted it!" tells us that pretty well.

It's frankly really sad that, for example, cooperative ARPGs pretty much died with the Mana series. I enjoyed playing the Gamecube Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles a lot, but again, very few games in that mold are created anymore.

It helps me realize why watching things like E3 can feel so empty sometimes; there really are a lot of styles of games that get NO real new releases... even under indies.

I woudn't trust current Square to find their own arse using both hands.
Anyhow, let's hope that Dragon's Crown ushers in an era of imitators, but I'm afraid 2D gaming has become something for the minorities.

If they attempted such a product, they'd at least have my attention. But they're such a smaller factor in gaming for me, than they used to be, but once I find my way into one of their products, it's kinda like old times.

Um, what? Locking some achievements to the most hardcore and dedicated of players is standard behavior for most games, no?

Some, but locking them all behind a "Play to 1CC, Or don't play at all!" idea is very unbalanced.

Again, Dark Souls seems to have done alright.

(Dark Souls is becoming the new Godwin's Law ).

Dark Souls is still weird to me (yup, haven't played it seriously yet!) because it seems like the only thing that gets away with this. It's selling point is that it's masochistically hard. Not much else could claim this, without it being a detraction.

Exception, not rule, etc.

The first part isn't true. They are designed to be one-shotted by good players, with the option to allow those who are not good enough to continue and see the content of the rest of the game should they pay up to please arcade ops.

Also, 1CCs aren't superplays by any means. The term "1-sissy" exists for a reason...

Maybe some like this are designed that, but I doubt Konami's "Cheap and with no rhyme or reason" BEUs are designed with 1CC in mind. The primary point was to get as much money as one could from the gamers. I doubt a majority of games designers could 1CC their own titles, really, even though they have inside-info.

I'll apologize if I over-used the "Superplay" descriptor, means the same thing to me, lol. Never seen "1-sissy" term, actually...

 

[Risette]

My experiences with piles upon piles of Japanese arcade games make me think that it's extremely likely that the developers of this game intended it to be beatable without continuing. People have enjoyed beating it without continues.

hey, IGS is Taiwanese and their games are pretty good too!!

Maybe some like this are designed that, but I doubt Konami's "Cheap and with no rhyme or reason" BEUs are designed with 1CC in mind. The primary point was to get as much money as one could from the gamers. I doubt a majority of games designers could 1CC their own titles, really, even though they have inside-info.

I'll apologize if I over-used the "Superplay" descriptor, means the same thing to me, lol. Never seen "1-sissy" term, actually...

Konami's games are bad though. (most of them anyways)

 

[cartman414]

It's an arcade game, so it was designed with digital control in mind. The controls are pretty lenient in some ways though (easy buffer windows on moves), so it won't be TOO bad to play with whichever you prefer.

Joystick would be recommended if you have this as an option, since it was an arcade game, and the button layout is designed for 4 button arcade sticks.



Well, the first part is true. Arcade games were made to quarter munch! But the goal of "one shot!" is to play the game with increasingly growing skill; the gamer always aims to play a game better each time they attempt it. (Assuming they care about more than "seeing the end", and trading it in instantly.)

I think Arcades were the best at mixing a desire for skill, and a desire for pure fun, really. Since creators had to hook you, every moment was exciting and full of greatness. No space for tutorial hour 1, or build up that took 30 hours to fully put the pieces together. I feel like a focus on "Superplay or GTFO!" don't really appreciate the all-access side of arcade gaming, much as how "All games should be EASY, I don't wanna have to retry 10 times to beat a boss!" players fail to recognize that perfecting a game is a big part of real replayability.

Yup! The original Developers, different features, different UI, everything but the core game seems to be separate.

Awww. That's a bit of a buzzkill. Hope they throw IG some assistance to make those options possible. I know multiples of one character will be a thing on the Japanese version.

 

[Weltall Zero]

It helps me realize why watching things like E3 can feel so empty sometimes; there really are a lot of styles of games that get NO real new releases... even under indies.

Yep. Indie games are at their best with entirely new mechanics, particularly ones that don't need a lot of content (like FTL, etc). Games such as these are meant to have a lot of content, which most indies can't afford to develop.

Some, but locking them all behind a "Play to 1CC, Or don't play at all!" idea is very unbalanced.

Oh! Sorry, I misread. Yeah, that would be moronic. I would be happy with one or two achievements like that ("reach X stage with no continues").

Dark Souls is still weird to me (yup, haven't played it seriously yet!) because it seems like the only thing that gets away with this. It's selling point is that it's masochistically hard. Not much else could claim this, without it being a detraction.

It's selling point, actually, is that it's awesome, and ALSO that it doesn't insult its player. It's not nearly as hard as people believe (it's not NEARLY as hard as, say, 1cc'ing Mystara); it's just that people aren't used to a modern game giving no modern concesions. Frankly, I think you'd love it.

Maybe some like this are designed that, but I doubt Konami's "Cheap and with no rhyme or reason" BEUs are designed with 1CC in mind. The primary point was to get as much money as one could from the gamers. I doubt a majority of games designers could 1CC their own titles, really, even though they have inside-info.

Inside info has nothing on hours upon hours of dedicated play, which arguably many developers get as a side effect of playtesting the game over and over. But yeah, arcade games were under no contract to be able to be 1cc'ed, and Konami's are notoriously cheap.

From the non-Capcom ones, I believe Golden Axe can probably 1cc'd without much problem.

I'll apologize if I over-used the "Superplay" descriptor, means the same thing to me, lol. Never seen "1-sissy" term, actually...

Same. What does it even mean?

 

[Sinatar]

What an utterly moronic statement.
Can you continue in the arcade version of D&D for free? No.
So what exactly are you getting at?
(your insulting post doesn't deserve more thought than this).

Ok let me spell it out for you.

Continuing in D&D doesn't fundamentally alter the design of the game. Completely changing the difficulty in Dark Souls FUNDAMENTALLY ALTERS THE DESIGN OF THE GAME. Do you understand why your comparison was stupid now? I can't make this any simpler.

Anyways. I'm out. This thread's gone down the toilet.

 

[AcceptableGhost]

Ok let me spell it out for you.

Continuing in D&D doesn't fundamentally alter the design of the game. Completely changing the difficulty in Dark Souls FUNDAMENTALLY ALTERS THE DESIGN OF THE GAME. Do you understand why your comparison was stupid now? I can't make this any simpler.

Anyways. I'm out. This thread's gone down the toilet.

Infinite continuing in d&d is invulnerability.
That is actually worse than a Dark Souls easy mode lol.

Edit: Also every time a difficult game gets called "masochistic" or "punishing" I die a little inside.

 

[Weltall Zero]

Ok let me spell it out for you.

Continuing in D&D doesn't fundamentally alter the design of the game. Completely changing the difficulty in Dark Souls FUNDAMENTALLY ALTERS THE DESIGN OF THE GAME. Do you understand why your comparison was stupid now? I can't make this any simpler.

I'm not ignoring you because you're not obvious (though wrong). I'm ignoring you because you're rude.

The fundamental game design of D&D never accounted for the player having infinite money. Having infinite money means you literally do not have to even play the game. If that's not fundamentally breaking a game's design, I don't know what is.

Anyways. I'm out. This thread's gone down the toilet.

My heart is utterly, utterly broken.

 

[Skilletor]

Third question, then:
3) Are you aware that the debate on whether or not an Easy mode would be damaging to Dark Souls is a heated and ongoing one, with no definite conclusions, and that the same applies here? Or, put another way, do you realize there are reasons to forbid both an Easy mode in DS and continues in an arcade port? (whether or not you share them).

You go enjoy the game "the right way," whatever that means. I'll enjoy being able to continue because it allows me to play with friends, with my girlfriend's son who isn't good at videogames at all (yet), etc.

There is no definite conclusion because there's no right way to play. So long as everybody has the option or ability to play the game as they desire, I see no issue. People trying to dictate how others can or should play can "insert pejorative here."

I've come to expect elitism in fighting game threads. Never thought I'd see it in a beat em up.

 

[Manmademan]

So, just had my first official 2p Playthrough of Shadows over Mystara... Wow. Once you start getting into all the finer details of spell usage, enemy weaknesses, move pacing, cancelling, juggling, and strategy, it gets so satisfying!

Though I always look at a game like this and wonder "who properly played and appreciated any of this in an arcade?!?" I can just imagine everyone fast-forwarding everything, and not paying any attention to what's really going on, ha.

A Cleric X Thief run, and I swear all they wanted to do is give us Fighter Swords and Magic User Rods... ha. Growing up that spell tree was pretty nice, though I wish my Earthquake and Insect Swarm spells felt more worthwhile against the things I WANTED to use them on.

The only "issue" I've encountered on 360, is that buying from the trial never brought up a "Save to hard Drive" option for me, so my first 57 mins of playing through Tower of Doom were lost after exiting the game But since then, no issues. I was even able to stop half-way through SoD (was sleepy last night), and resume today, with both me and Offline Co-Op partner having our character full info saved for resuming.

It's such a shame, because almost everything I see in this game, is exactly what I'd want as an online/offline co-op-focused branching-path for Action RPGs. I never really felt the Diablo-a-like diversion really ever felt like a replacement; characters are so small and impersonal in games like that, that I never feel like I connect with the designs in the same way. Capcom's art back in these days was so spot-on; nameless Archetypes could become personal avatars with just enough personality to feel like "characters" by the end of the adventure.

I wish that Dragon's Dogma Vita announcement was a 2.5/2D multiplayer side-scrolling hybrid of this game, and DragDog.

SoM came out in 96? 17 Years, and yet few have tried to top the formulas of a game such as this since, and the amount of proper spiritual successors can be counted on half of a single hand? What the heck if wrong with gaming...

yeah, this is part of the reason I like the game so much. It's bizarrely complex and detailed for a beat em up. There's no way to discover everything without literally owning the arcade cabinet. SO many things in that game would have just gone undiscovered at the time.

 

[Sir Ilpalazzo]

There is no definite conclusion because there's no right way to play. So long as everybody has the option or ability to play the game as they desire, I see no issue. People trying to dictate how others can or should play can "insert pejorative here."

But the thing is that options are not always a good thing. Sometimes the developer needs to put their foot down in order to keep their game from being cheapened. If Super Mario Bros. had a feature that made Mario invincible and capable of flight in any direction, saying "just don't use it if you don't like it" and "options are good!" is completely missing the point.

It would be totally fine if infinite continues were part of an explicitly-labeled cheat mode that disabled achievements or something. That way people who want that can just go play in that mode instead.

 

[Weltall Zero]

You go enjoy the game "the right way," whatever that means. I'll enjoy being able to continue because it allows me to play with friends, with my girlfriend's son who isn't good at videogames at all (yet), etc.

There is no definite conclusion because there's no right way to play. So long as everybody has the option or ability to play the game as they desire, I see no issue. People trying to dictate how others can or should play can "insert pejorative here."

I've come to expect elitism in fighting game threads. Never thought I'd see it in a beat em up.

That's not the conversation I'm making, though, and I wish you all didn't shield yourselves continuously with "you can play how you want" when that's really not the point.

The point is, where do you draw the line? An arcade game with infinite continues is literally unlosable. It's the equivalent of having infinite health in any other game. Would you advocate for having infinite health in every game? It also gives you infinite spells, since dying replenishes them. Should we have that too? Do you think that all games would benefit from having an option (nay, the default mode) as "infinite health, infinite ammo"? Do you understand that some would object to even the possibility to do that right off the bat?

To sum it up: the "you can limit yourself if you want challenge" argument can be applied to EVERY SINGLE GAME EVER MADE that was deemed too easy. Does that mean that no criticism of being too easy, ever, has held any merit?

Also, this has nothing to do with elitism. I'm actually pretty lousy at this game (19 continues to finish it!). It's about wanting challenge. Please don't spin a strawman from the former when it's the latter.

 

[MightyHedgehog]

Not as fun as I remember, but I think it's just down to more nostalgia than anything else. Still fun and challenging. Would like Capcom to actually get serious about this genre again, though, since there's obviously room for improvement, especially when it comes to screen space movement and collision. As it stands, I'm still more of a fan of Treasure's Guardian Heroes than this, though this obviously offers four-player play and classic D&D elements.

 

[SAB CA]

Konami's games are bad though. (most of them anyways)

I love them in their time, and I LIKE them now, but they're much more "aesthetic fun" than "in depth fun". But they do insult the "skill = victory!" side of things, because there's so much random stupidity in their design...

In a way, they feel like the 90's equal to the Naruto Ultimate Ninja Storm series... Art is through the roof good, but nuances of gameplay just have me shaking my head "WHY?!?" for hours on end...

Awww. That's a bit of a buzzkill. Hope they throw IG some assistance to make those options possible. I know multiples of one character will be a thing on the Japanese version.

If they were to free-patch any improvements, offer system-changes as another mode, or even offer the newly developed stuff as paid DLC (One is a 15 buck work, the other 40-ish), I'd be happy. I don't expect any of this yet, but it'd be a nice way to please both sides in some way or another.

Yep. Indie games are at their best with entirely new mechanics, particularly ones that don't need a lot of content (like FTL, etc). Games such as these are meant to have a lot of content, which most indies can't afford to develop.

And it's loads of quality content, but with an overall short playtime. I love games like this, because the quality per area is through the roof, but that's not a thing in most modern games...

Oh! Sorry, I misread. Yeah, that would be moronic. I would be happy with one or two achievements like that ("reach X stage with no continues").

It could have read messy, so no worries. A few "as hard as can be!" achievements are always welcome, yeah. Personally, I think the "0 point achievement for true masters!" thing is a nice idea, too; It's not about how much Gamerscore, but the fact you even DID it. I don't think ALL should be like that, but it's great in some cases.

It's selling point, actually, is that it's awesome, and ALSO that it doesn't insult its player. It's not nearly as hard as people believe (it's not NEARLY as hard as, say, 1cc'ing Mystara); it's just that people aren't used to a modern game giving no modern concesions. Frankly, I think you'd love it.

It sits in my "only played for 10 min or so" backlog, lol. It's magic just hasn't happened for me yet, but I know it's something I have to give some time too; for now, all I've been able to do is read about "the future" and wonder "hmmm... how many hrs until I get to experience THAT feel?!?"

Inside info has nothing on hours upon hours of dedicated play, which arguably many developers get as a side effect of playtesting the game over and over. But yeah, arcade games were under no contract to be able to be 1cc'ed, and Konami's are notoriously cheap.

From the non-Capcom ones, I believe Golden Axe can probably 1cc'd without much problem.

LoL, I actually 1CCd Golden Axe on it's original XBLA release myself. It took like 4 attempts, and 1 of those was a "die at DEATH=ADDER" style (O.O) loss, but it happened!

To me, designing a game for 1CC, honestly, would mean that every gameplay feature can be used in the 1CC run. Watching people force enemies off screen, use "infinite" punch loops like in SoR or Final Fight, exploit spots of the screen for invincibility, have a SP stand in the corner while they do all the work, or figure out out glitches that make some moves have longer invincibility / more damage because they lock the sprites in odd ways, are not satisfying in the least. I dare say showing them hurts the actual game much more, than normal, continue-filled play.

...You can tell I've been annoyed by watching/playing with exploit-players online, lol. "Well, I just Beat SoR! What do I wanna do now? Actually play SOR!"

Same. What does it even mean?

I wonder if it's like the crap I described above, haha.

Infinite continues is really, really stupid.

No ways to limit them is really, really stupid, ok. But I prefer infinite continues as a "lazy bandaid" rather than "3 coin limit, NO OPTIONS, NO CHOICE", like old NeoGeo releases.

I'd have been ok with a "earn more continues as you play" style thing, too. Though I'm sure many people of lower game skill would be tired of having to grind stage 1 10 times, in order to get enough continues to see stage 2. Noone should EVER be this bad, but you never know...

yeah, this is part of the reason I like the game so much. It's bizarrely complex and detailed for a beat em up. There's no way to discover everything without literally owning the arcade cabinet. SO many things in that game would have just gone undiscovered at the time.

So much EVERYTHING, all made so 90% of players could watch it in fast forward, and never read it! It's like the game BEGGED for a home console release, ever since it was created!

 

[Manmademan]

But the thing is that options are not always a good thing. Sometimes the developer needs to put their foot down in order to keep their game from being cheapened. If Super Mario Bros. had a feature that made Mario invincible and capable of flight in any direction, saying "just don't use it if you don't like it" and "options are good!" is completely missing the point.

It would be totally fine if infinite continues were part of an explicitly-labeled cheat mode that disabled achievements or something. That way people who want that can just go play in that mode instead.

I've been ignoring this part of the convo, because it's really a no-win scenario. Arcade games in general were designed to kill the player as often and unfairly as possible to eat quarters and keep arcade operators in business. Some are worse about this than others (Robocop: The Arcade game was so ridiculous I can't beat it even on MAME with infinite money), but it's a good rule of thumb.

Dark souls is a bad comparison, since dark souls is DIFFICULT, but not "unavoidable kills left and right" difficult. If one pays attention (or has been through the game at least once) not dying at all is perfectly doable- except for MAYBE Bed of Chaos, which most admit is an awful boss encounter.

That aside, you can't really just enable infinite lives on an arcade title without obliterating the difficulty (since part of the challenge was not running out of money), and you can't just arbitrarily limit a player's continues either. Who decides how many credits are "fair" to get through the game before kicking you back to the attract screen? the original game wasn't designed with such a limit in mind.

The only reasonable compromise I've seen so far is what R-Type Final does. An arcade type game designed for consoles, it limits continues from the outset to 6, then gradually increases them based on hours played, player deaths, stages cleared etc until they're infinite. If you can't wait a couple hours or are just impatient, there's a cheat code.

 

[Skilletor]

That's not the conversation I'm making, though, and I wish you all didn't shield yourselves continuously with "you can play how you want" when that's really not the point.

The point is, where do you draw the line? An arcade game with infinite continues is literally unlosable. It's the equivalent of having infinite health in any other game. Would you advocate for having infinite health in every game? It also gives you infinite spells, since dying replenishes them. Should we have that too? Do you think that all games would benefit from having an option (nay, the default mode) as "infinite health, infinite ammo"? Do you understand that some would object to even the possibility to do that right off the bat?

To sum it up: the "you can limit yourself if you want challenge" argument can be applied to EVERY SINGLE GAME EVER MADE that was deemed too easy. Does that mean that no criticism of being too easy, ever, has held any merit?

Also, this has nothing to do with elitism. I'm actually pretty lousy at this game (19 continues to finish it!). It's about wanting challenge. Please don't spin a strawman from the former when it's the latter.

I apologize. I'm combining yours and Risette's argument. His/Her comment that "ports should disable continues." THAT and that line of thinking, that there is a right way to enjoy these games, is the attitude I am against.

I'll take Ninja Gaiden as an example. There is a ninja dog mode. If you die 3 or 4 times in a row at a particular section, you can choose to go that route. Or you can start off on easy.

Me, I hate easy modes. I would never choose easy. I love a challenge. I love when games kick my ass. So long as the existence of an easy mode does not change the experience I wish to have in Ninja Gaiden, I couldn't care less for its existence.

Take Tomb Raider (2013) vs. the old. Tomb Raider (old) was challenging. You had to time jumps, dodge traps, avoid boulders. Shit like that. New Tomb Raider has Magnetic Lara who can almost literally not mistime or misalign a jump. Secrets are highlighted on walls, notifications pop up on screens. This is too easy. This is removal of a challenge that impacts my enjoyment. There is no harder difficulty that will add more tombs or more challenging jumps.

Now you say that infinite continues impacts D & D. How? If you never continue, the difficulty is the same as if I continue millions of times. The game is exactly the same except that you're a better player than I am. Who cares if it's unlosable so long as you, the player who wants more challenge, has the option to play as they wish. So long as the game is not designed around the player NEEDING infinite life to progress (making enemies cheap, have too much life, or whatever), I don't see the problem.

Would I make infinite life or whatever default? Probably not. But I would argue that the player that cares about that kind of thing is more likely to go searching for the option to turn it off, so I'm not sure I would particularly care. Again, so long as the game isn't balanced around that necessity, I have no issue with it.

 

[Augemitbutter]

i credit feed in the online multiplayer currently. don't want to search for new players every time i die. but i'm getting better!

but i'm clearly in the "give players incentives to get getter" camp. crappy trophies aren't enough. give unique content and better acknowledgement if people want to explore your game thoroughly.

 

[Manmademan]

i credit feed in the online multiplayer currently. don't want to search for new players every time i die. but i'm getting better!

but i'm clearly in the "give players incentives to get getter" camp. crappy trophies aren't enough. give unique content and better acknowledgement if people want to explore your game thoroughly.

I heard somewhere (was it this thread?) that Tower of Doom resets score when continuing, but mystara does not. something simple like that really should be present in both titles.

 

[Risette]

I apologize. I'm combining yours and Risette's argument. His/Her comment that "ports should disable continues." THAT and that line of thinking, that there is a right way to enjoy these games, is the attitude I am against.

I'd be all for Tain's idea of putting it in a cheat menu for regular play. I just don't want it to be the default. Not because I'm an elitist (I'm not) but because I genuinely, honestly think it makes the games worse for people who aren't informed about how arcade games work. I do think that at least a few would find that way of playing much more exciting and invigorating. And for those who don't? Flip the switch in a menu.

 

[Weltall Zero]

It sits in my "only played for 10 min or so" backlog, lol. It's magic just hasn't happened for me yet, but I know it's something I have to give some time too; for now, all I've been able to do is read about "the future" and wonder "hmmm... how many hrs until I get to experience THAT feel?!?"

Surprisingly soon! Since it's such a no-nonsense game, once you're out of the tutorial, it gets rock hard right away. Hell, some of my best memories of Dark Souls are from the first "stage". Which I took like a week to complete (this was my "detox" or "rehabilitation" period from nearly a generation of way too easy games). It was awesome. Relly beautiful too. I know the starting place is dull and depressing, but it gets beautiful soon after.

LoL, I actually 1CCd Golden Axe on it's original XBLA release myself. It took like 4 attempts, and 1 of those was a "die at DEATH=ADDER" style (O.O) loss, but it happened!

Heh, I just remember 4cc'ing when I was, like... 12? 13? Not probably indicative of anything, I guess.

To me, designing a game for 1CC, honestly, would mean that every gameplay feature can be used in the 1CC run. Watching people force enemies off screen, use "infinite" punch loops like in SoR or Final Fight, exploit spots of the screen for invincibility, have a SP stand in the corner while they do all the work, or figure out out glitches that make some moves have longer invincibility / more damage because they lock the sprites in odd ways, are not satisfying in the least. I dare say showing them hurts the actual game much more, than normal, continue-filled play.

Well, it's not "one or the other". Good game design is good game design, and updates can fix these problems. D&D games have few of these problems to begin with.

...You can tell I've been annoyed by watching/playing with exploit-players online, lol. "Well, I just Beat SoR! What do I wanna do now? Actually play SOR!"

Heh, I guess I never bothered finding exploits in Streets of Rage (2, the one I owned and played to death, although at the time Internet pretty much didn't exist, so...). I don't remember it being too hard to beat normally, it must have had a generous amount of continues.

I wonder if it's like the crap I described above, haha.

Might be, I guess. For D&D, I guess that would be Highlander Mode (which I've only read about, and which I guess is corrected for this version).

No ways to limit them is really, really stupid, ok. But I prefer infinite continues as a "lazy bandaid" rather than "3 coin limit, NO OPTIONS, NO CHOICE", like old NeoGeo releases.

Oddly enough I'd rather have a set amount than infinite, even if it's a low amount. That way I feel something remotely similar to accomplishment when I see the game's ending. I do understand it wouldn't be popular.

I'd have been ok with a "earn more continues as you play" style thing, too. Though I'm sure many people of lower game skill would be tired of having to grind stage 1 10 times, in order to get enough continues to see stage 2. Noone should EVER be this bad, but you never know...

Earning "persistent" continues would be a terrible idea indeed. I'm not against getting non-persistent extra credits at set amounts of points, much like old games.

So much EVERYTHING, all made so 90% of players could watch it in fast forward, and never read it! It's like the game BEGGED for a home console release, ever since it was created!

Yeah, Tower of Doom and especially Shadow over Mystara have an insane amount of depth, secrets and replayability.

 

[Augemitbutter]

I heard somewhere (was it this thread?) that Tower of Doom resets score when continuing, but mystara does not. something simple like that really should be present in both titles.

i've only played ToD so far. it looks like the score is never lost. you can basically farm score by just playing the game over and over. one guy in my FL is at 24 in the global rankings currently and i know he's terrible

 

[GotchaForce]

I had fun playing through the first game local with friends. Glancing at the talk on this page, though I agree I'd rather play it how it was intended and will do so when we do Mystara.

How do I go about making the settings default to the arcade experience?

 

[Weltall Zero]

I've been ignoring this part of the convo, because it's really a no-win scenario. Arcade games in general were designed to kill the player as often and unfairly as possible to eat quarters and keep arcade operators in business. Some are worse about this than others (Robocop: The Arcade game was so ridiculous I can't beat it even on MAME with infinite money), but it's a good rule of thumb.

It really isn't. All arcade games aren't created equal. See below.

Dark souls is a bad comparison, since dark souls is DIFFICULT, but not "unavoidable kills left and right" difficult.

Neither is Mystara! The very fact that you think this, demonstrates how bad having unlimited credits is. Good players can solo, 1cc the game nearly every time. That doesn't happen with "unavoidble kills left and right". "Random" in this case is an excuse for "I don't want to be bothered to learn how to play". An excuse that is regularly thrown at Dark Souls!

There are more paralelisms here than many of you want to admit, simply because Dark Souls is a holy cow of hard difficulty.

If one pays attention (or has been through the game at least once) not dying at all is perfectly doable- except for MAYBE Bed of Chaos, which most admit is an awful boss encounter.

Again, same thing with Mystara! It's not nearly the only arcade to do so, though. At my childhood peak levels of Snow Bros expertise, I could finish the game and end up with more lives than I started.

That aside, you can't really just enable infinite lives on an arcade title without obliterating the difficulty (since part of the challenge was not running out of money), and you can't just arbitrarily limit a player's continues either. Who decides how many credits are "fair" to get through the game before kicking you back to the attract screen? the original game wasn't designed with such a limit in mind.

The only reasonable compromise I've seen so far is what R-Type Final does. An arcade type game designed for consoles, it limits continues from the outset to 6, then gradually increases them based on hours played, player deaths, stages cleared etc until they're infinite. If you can't wait a couple hours or are just impatient, there's a cheat code.

That's is pretty good for me. Anything but "unlimited credits from the get-go".

I apologize. I'm combining yours and Risette's argument. His/Her comment that "ports should disable continues." THAT and that line of thinking, that there is a right way to enjoy these games, is the attitude I am against.

I'll take Ninja Gaiden as an example. There is a ninja dog mode. If you die 3 or 4 times in a row at a particular section, you can choose to go that route. Or you can start off on easy.

Actually, infinite continues would be equivalent to a hypothetic "ninja worm" mode, where you respawn on the spot with full health every time you're killed.

Unless you don't. Because you always have that option.

 

[Freshmaker]

Many a gamer takes the obvious, easy way out though. Games are traded in within the first few days of release because of quick frustration.

So get your lifebar to 0 = GAME OVER would somehow retain them?

How?

This is like arguing that DS isn't being played correctly unless you never die once. Anything less is too much pandering to casuals and wishing that infinite continues weren't allowed since it makes the game too easy since you can never die.

Third question, then:
3) Are you aware that the debate on whether or not an Easy mode would be damaging to Dark Souls is a heated and ongoing one, with no definite conclusions, and that the same applies here? Or, put another way, do you realize there are reasons to forbid both an Easy mode in DS and continues in an arcade port? (whether or not you share them).

I haven't seen a good argument against an easy mode yet.

 

[Skilletor]

Actually, infinite continues would be equivalent to a hypothetic "ninja worm" mode, where you respawn on the spot with full health every time you're killed.

Unless you don't. Because you always have that option.

Except it isn't because the enemies in ninja gaiden are difficulty dependent, the amount of damage you do, the amount of damage you take, all of that changes.

Which I guess, is what I mean to say.

You make the base game challenging and then you give the player who needs them perks to help progress (if any perks are to be given).

 

[Sir Ilpalazzo]

I've been ignoring this part of the convo, because it's really a no-win scenario. Arcade games in general were designed to kill the player as often and unfairly as possible to eat quarters and keep arcade operators in business. Some are worse about this than others (Robocop: The Arcade game was so ridiculous I can't beat it even on MAME with infinite money), but it's a good rule of thumb.

Dark souls is a bad comparison, since dark souls is DIFFICULT, but not "unavoidable kills left and right" difficult. If one pays attention (or has been through the game at least once) not dying at all is perfectly doable- except for MAYBE Bed of Chaos, which most admit is an awful boss encounter.

That aside, you can't really just enable infinite lives on an arcade title without obliterating the difficulty (since part of the challenge was not running out of money), and you can't just arbitrarily limit a player's continues either. Who decides how many credits are "fair" to get through the game before kicking you back to the attract screen? the original game wasn't designed with such a limit in mind.

The only reasonable compromise I've seen so far is what R-Type Final does. An arcade type game designed for consoles, it limits continues from the outset to 6, then gradually increases them based on hours played, player deaths, stages cleared etc until they're infinite. If you can't wait a couple hours or are just impatient, there's a cheat code.

First, I think you're wrong about all arcade games being designed to unfairly kill the player. That might be true for some low-quality games, but not for games like this and other Capcom beat-em-ups. It is true that these games have a higher level of difficulty than their console competitors, and that you're not likely to beat them with a single credit on your first attempt, but that doesn't make them any less fair than Dark Souls. All you have to do is go on Youtube to see that Shadow over Mystara (and even Ghouls 'n Ghosts) are absolutely beatable with no deaths, just like Dark Souls.

Allowing infinite lives is bad because it keeps people from coming to understand the game. You see a ton of people - even gaming enthusiasts on GAF - who think that the beat-em-up genre is mindless and shallow. And why wouldn't they? Like you and other people said, if you play games like these with infinite credits, they are nothing more than a pointless time-waster. If infinite credits wasn't the default, people wouldn't be so inclined to think that way.

I agree that giving the player an arbitrary amount of continues at the start is kind of weird, but I think it's a better compromise than giving the player infinite continues, and it is at least how console ports of arcade games, or arcade-style beat-em-ups made for consoles (like Streets of Rage) worked.

I don't like the solution R-Type Final presents. Imagine someone who doesn't know anything about arcade games or how credits work picks up the game and just plays through it naturally. By the time they unlock infinite credits (given to them as a reward), they'll just end up credit-feeding their way through the game. The GameCube port of Ikaruga does the same thing and I don't think it's a good solution at all.

 

[AcceptableGhost]

So get your lifebar to 0 = GAME OVER would somehow retain them?

How?

This is like arguing that DS isn't being played correctly unless you never die once. Anything less is too much pandering to casuals.

a checkpoint in dark souls could be longer than an entire arcade games

 

[Sir Ilpalazzo]

I haven't seen a good argument against an easy mode yet.

If there's an easy mode and people get frustrated by the game, they might drop the difficulty instead of trying to perservere. Isn't that reason enough?

 

[Skilletor]

First, I think you're wrong about all arcade games being designed to unfairly kill the player. That might be true for some low-quality games, but not for games like this and other Capcom beat-em-ups. It is true that these games have a higher level of difficulty than their console competitors, and that you're not likely to beat them with a single credit on your first attempt, but that doesn't make them any less fair than Dark Souls. All you have to do is go on Youtube to see that Shadow over Mystara (and even Ghouls 'n Ghosts) are absolutely beatable with no deaths, just like Dark Souls.

Allowing infinite lives is bad because it keeps people from coming to understand the game. You see a ton of people - even gaming enthusiasts on GAF - who think that the beat-em-up genre is mindless and shallow. And why wouldn't they? Like you and other people said, if you play games like these with infinite credits, they are nothing more than a pointless time-waster. If infinite credits wasn't the default, people wouldn't be so inclined to think that way.

I agree that giving the player an arbitrary amount of continues at the start is kind of weird, but I think it's a better compromise than giving the player infinite continues, and it is at least how console ports of arcade games, or arcade-style beat-em-ups made for consoles (like Streets of Rage) worked.

I don't like the solution R-Type Final presents. Imagine someone who doesn't know anything about arcade games or how credits work picks up the game and just plays through it naturally. By the time they unlock infinite credits (given to them as a reward), they'll just end up credit-feeding their way through the game. The GameCube port of Ikaruga does the same thing and I don't think it's a good solution at all.

Or it keeps people from playing them at all.

People who want to get better at a game, will. If they don't, they don't. I know people who have been playing fighting games with me for years. I don't button mash in anything. Many of them do. They never beat me, but they have some fun because they can make cool shit happen with Xiba (or Kilik). They have no desire to learn even though they see me play and know there is a way to be better.

I don't take the stick or pad from them and tell them they're doing it wrong. The ones that want to learn have. The ones that don't, don't. I play with them all and offer advice and help where it's desired and have fun no matter who I play with. It's not for me to tell them they're having fun wrong.

 

[El Pescado]

So, like, I'm really busy with New Leaf and NSLU and all, but is there any word on the Wii U version? :/

 

[Freshmaker]

If there's an easy mode and people get frustrated by the game, they might drop the difficulty instead of trying to perservere. Isn't that reason enough?

They weren't going to do that either way most likely.

 

[Weltall Zero]

They weren't going to do that either way most likely.

Or it keeps people from playing them at all.

Now who are being the condescending elitists? The assumption than when giving "normal" gamers the choice between learning to play or quitting, is going to make them quit, is the entire reason why gaming as a whole is turning into a fucking joke.

a checkpoint in dark souls could be longer than an entire arcade games

Besides the fact that I don't know what that does have to do with anything (lenght=depth? huh?), Mystara is 1-2 hours long. No checkpoint in Dark Souls should take more than 30 minutes if you have any clue what you're doing.

 

[Clockwork5]

Again, Dark Souls seems to have done alright.

That depends on who you talk to. i know quite a few people who never beat it and gave up about 1/2 through. Not because it wasn't a good game, but because it was too hard.

I love Dark Souls but not everyone sees that game the same way. i dont even think it is particularly hard; I would say unforgiving is a better term. On the other hand, Castlevania 1 is kinda kicking my ass right now, but i am getting better

 

[Skilletor]

Now who are being the condescending elitists? The assumption than when giving "normal" gamers the choice between learning to play or quitting, is going to make them quit, is the entire reason why gaming as a whole is turning into a fucking joke.

We are where we are for a reason. /shrug

I wouldn't be able to get anybody to play this game with me if they couldn't continue. Some people just want to finish a game. I see nothing wrong with that.

I also don't see it as elitist to say that some people will quit a game if they are unable to progress. I don't know what you mean by "normal" gamers, either.

As I keep saying, I've experienced this in fighting games. Lots of people don't find it fun to break down games. They're good experiencing something just on the surface level. So long as the games are designed with a deeper experience in mind, others having fun their own way has no impact on my enjoyment.

I'm done with this conversation. It goes back and forth and it's (unfortunately) unlikely we'll ever see another beatemup from Capcom.

/me goes to play D & D

Cheers D & D bros. I'm happy to FINALLY have a legit version to play. I've never had the opportunity to get indepth with this game and I'm definitely looking forward to it.

 

[AcceptableGhost]

Besides the fact that I don't know what that does have to do with anything (lenght=depth? huh?), Mystara is 1-2 hours long. No checkpoint in Dark Souls should take more than 30 minutes if you have any clue what you're doing.

He was comparing completing an arcade game with no deaths to beating Dark Souls with no deaths. I am saying that most arcade games are designed to be able to be beaten easily in one sitting (for... obvious reasons) so the comparison is worthless. Also, the D&D games are pretty long arcade games. I was not making any statement about depth at all. Quality over quantity all day long.

 

[Pinko Marx]

Some friends and I are going to try a 1CC run on master mode later tonight. I'm going to enable the Vampirism house rule because the game can be down right devious at times.

 

[Synth_floyd]

I do agree that infinite credits does ruin beat em ups. Why put any skill or focus on it when it's just a mindless button mash? Though in its defense, even without infinite credits, most people will still just mindlessly button mash anyway and not notice or care about how deep the game systems are.