Dude it's an arcade game. Just get good.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Sega Saturn Appreciation and Emulation Thread
- Thread starter Seik
- Start date
Dude it's an arcade game. Just get good.
IrishNinja
Member
that is not ABF's way
Moor-Angol
Banned
I'm not yet too much into MD actually so I can't say which one is better, but my love for 2D probably would let me say MD
Thunderforce IV <3 <3 <3
the only thing I'm sure is that the 90's were the pinnacle of japanese developers, especially regarding the originality
It's also on the Saturn, along with the exclusive arcade one.
sixteen-bit
Member
Yeah. The title of the Saturn game is actually Elevator Action² Returns. This is in reference to having both games on the disc.
Shadow Hog
Member
Technically on the SNES as Thunder Spirits.
Both are just ports of the Genesis original Thunder Force 3, though I'm not sure of how different things are beyond using "Omake 2" from Thunder Force IV in one of the stages.
robot
Member
Thunder Force AC has 2 different stages compared to TF3 (one of them being a throwback stage from Thunder Force 2), the hud position is different, and the ending screens are more detailed. There is also no starting stage select in AC. I also think the voices are clearer in AC but the music just seems to pump more in TF3.
I never played Thunder Spirits, but apparently it's a not so great port of AC with some differences as well.
IrishNinja
Member
Always was unclear about that...nice to not need the NES port mow, haha...booting this up next weekend for sure!
sixteen-bit
Member
Neat, Akiman (Street Fighter, Gundam) made a Last Bronx drawing. I've never seen it before.
(warning Akiman is a perv)
(warning Akiman is a perv)
A Black Falcon
Member
Why do that when you can just play a game which is pretty much the same thing but better in Dynamite Cop? Dynamite Cop has better graphics, improved gameplay, branching paths to give the game more variety, better credit-limit systems, etc.
And besides, this isn't a good answer because Die Hard Arcade is a great co-op multiplayer game, and you can't count on both players being equally good. I'm sure people will love it when you say "sorry, we need to play Deep Scan for half an hour before we start the game so we have enough credits go get far into it."
blast processed
Member
You're either really bad at Deep Scan or are greatly exaggerating the length needed to play. I racked up 10 credits in 5 minutes. That was more than enough for me to complete the game by myself.
A Black Falcon
Member
An intentional exaggeration, sure, but I think the point stands.
You need to stop playing arcade video games if you can't stand difficulty.
It's not an RPG, you're not supposed to walk through it and explore the world. You want to go far into it, see the ending? Get good.
And no, the point doesn't stand. You should compare / review arcade video games for their intrinsic properties, not the way they give you extra credit. In the real world, you get extra credits by putting quarters in the machine. Be lucky there is even an option to gain extra credits outside of the game.
Friend of Sonic
Member
I am on the Rhea preorder list.
/rubs hands together
/rubs hands together
Nice! Curious to know what you think of it. It certainly opened up the Saturn catalog for me!
ResidentDante
Member
I'm gonna defend Black Falcon here a little:
While I get your arcade games are fun and "they are what they are" point, I just don't get the whole stupid idea of keeping the coin and continue system from the arcades.
The Saturn and PS1 very much began their generation by offering "arcade perfect ports" of 3D games that previously were almost exclusive in huge arcade machines. While initially vowing home gamers with games like Ridge Racer, Tekken, Daytona USA, Virtua Fighter etc. I always felt they grew away from these arcade style games that are really short, and with ruthless difficulty, because what people wanted was more content.
This very generic layout of typical arcade games is what killed them partially imo. How difficult would it have been to make for fleshed out home versions, with extra levels, difficulties etc. I don't want to sit in my home after paying £50 for a game and not being able to play beyond the first couple of levels. And when I finally do get past them I realize the lazy bastards only made one other level past that.
It worked in the arcade where I don't have time for more and my highscore could be viewed by others, but not back in the pre-internet homes of the nineties. Especially coop games where the second player is usually fairly unfamiliar with the game, making the high difficulties a huge pain in the ass. Yes, I get that some games added an easy mode or infinite continues but by the end of the 1 hour long game you just felt ripped off.
Imagine kids getting Virtua Cop or Ridge Racer for Xmas in the mid nineties, only to realize that you were stuck with this game until maybe a birthday or next Xmas. One hour of shooting some guys (and that's a definitive hour as the camera is forced along by the game) or 1,5 tracks to drive around. It felt like a scam for the home market back then, when the novelty of arcade graphics in the home disappeared, and it still does.
Don't get me wrong. I love all these arcade games and their fun ideas, but their lack of content, difficulty and coin system can burn in hell!
A Black Falcon
Member
I disagree pretty strongly with most everything you say here.
I should say first though that Die Hard Arcade is, yes, not some super-hard game, and sure, I'm sure with 10-something credits it's beatable. What I say below is in general, not just something specific for this game. One reason I think this is an appropriate issue for the Saturn thread is that a lot of early Sega games on the Saturn don't have saving -- Panzer Dragoon, Clockwork Knight, Sonic 3D Blast, etc. And others that do limit it in obnoxious ways, such as the continue limit in Bug!, despite the games' very high difficulty. Most of Sega's Genesis games don't have saving either, of course, while battery save is more common in first-party SNES titles. It took Sega a bit too long to realize that saving of some kind was important. PD Zwei is improved over the first one in some ways by having its hidden features as unlockables you unlock through play that are saved to a save file instead of just via cheat-codes you enter on the menu as it is in the first game, for instance.
That said, most importantly, you have this basic assumption that somehow a game is better if it forces you to play through the whole thing in one sitting. I don't care if it's classic or modern, this is complete nonsense. A game is not better if it's an annoyingly designed game that limits or doesn't give you continues, it's just irritatingly designed! Better-designed games have things such as continues and saving. "Get good" is such a bad philosophy, I really dislike it.
Sure, getting better at a game is a good thing if you like the game, but when a game forces you to repeatedly replay things you have beaten over and over before, that is, as far as I'm concerned, bad design. Yes, a lot of games I love do exactly that, and sometimes I don't even mind it if I really love the game, but better-designed games give you the option of continuing, have level-select menus or full save systems, etc. Sure, I can usually get better at a game through lots of replay, and I've done that plenty of times before with plenty of games, but I really, really dislike having to play through the same stuff over and over when I've beaten that part of the game already! I've gotten through that part before, let me start from the next part. That's what better-designed games do. And have a save system, not just infinite continues that force me to leave the system on for a long time, that stuff is annoying.
Now, in the specific case of arcade ports, I do understand why the restrictions exist. A lot of old arcade games are very short, so when you play them with infinite at-point continues they don't last long at all. Sometimes home port limit continues in order to artificially make the game take longer to finish. To a point this is understandable, people spent a bunch of money on the game and if it ends that fast they might be annoyed. But are those games that limit this so much that most players will never finish them really better? I mean, if a game lets you continue, you don't have to! Players have the choice to either try to beat it without continuing, or to continue and see the end but without getting a good score and such. This rewards all kinds of players and probably overall is the better design -- it lets someone who wants to just finish it beat it, but someone who wants to get better at the game to do that and probably have a more rewarding experience. Overall it would probably be best for games to have multiple modes, a tougher mode for those who want the challenge of limited continues, or an easier one for those who don't. I did like taking on the challenge of trying to beat, and eventually beating, Space Harrier (32X) without using the more-continues cheatcode, for instance, but I think it's just fine that they included that code for those who don't want to memorize as much.
As for save systems in arcade ports, all games do not need to let you save after every level, not if they're as short as a lot of arcade games are, but high-score save and level-select unlock features are good things most games should have. And longer games should have save systems added too, something you do see sometimes, but not others (Cadash and Wonder Boy in Monster Land really could have used save systems... ah well.)
One reason I so strongly prefer saving in games is surely my background as a gamer. I mean, the first gaming platform I had at home in the early '90s was a PC. PC games almost always let you save, so it's what I came to expect from games from early on. Sure, I'd played NES, Genesis, arcade, etc. games before that, but the first system you actually have at home has a big impact and the PC was mine. Apogee, my favorite PC shareware publisher at the time, had a requirement that all games they published must have saving in them, for example, and that was a fantastic move that really set a great standard for how games should be! As much as I do love 3rd, 4th, and early 5th-gen games, the lacking save systems in so, SO many games is really annoying and the worst thing about games from these eras.
The point is, I don't care if it's a game I'm good at or a game I'm bad at, it should have things like continues and saving. Even a short and easy game like Clockwork Knight would be better with saving for score, unlockables, what have you. The continue system is an "intrinsic property" of a game, it is not separate from that, and its absence is something which frustrates me about a whole lot of classic games. My strong preference for saving in games is why I made lists like this one, for instance, why I list if games save in Game Opinion Summary lists I make, etc. So in conclusion, "get good" is elitist and excludes anyone not as good at the game as you are, or without the time to spend hour and hours memorizing some game they like but aren't that great at, or anyone like me who can do that, but dislikes repeatedly replaying things I've beaten before. It's not a good attitude. Sure, getting better at games is great, but I greatly dislike games which gate themselves based on save systems. Gate things based on legitimate challenge in the game, not by some obnoxiously limited or absent save system.
If someone wants to make the choice to play arcade ports that way that's fine, but games should not force all players to try to play that way regardless of if they have the skill to pull it off or not.
IrishNinja
Member
"get good" isn't some elitist mantra of Souls fans, it's an important reminder that games are an interactive medium. if you have ADD & can't sit still/focus for a few hours, you're a bad movie-watcher. the answer isn't shorter films.
some - especially arcadey - games are designed to reward skill, which comes from practice. you can absolutely play a game wrong, and while challenge alone doesnt = good design, single-player AAA console games with auto-saving checkpoints every 5 minutes to guarantee you'll win if you just keep at it (a la RPGs) are not "better" either. the fact that you think the latter is required for "legitimate challenges" says a great deal more about the limited type of experiences you're looking for and nothing at all about design, really.
you're not owed saves, continues, or an ending screen. some games will make you work for it, and if that's not your thing, you play something else.
or you get good.
some - especially arcadey - games are designed to reward skill, which comes from practice. you can absolutely play a game wrong, and while challenge alone doesnt = good design, single-player AAA console games with auto-saving checkpoints every 5 minutes to guarantee you'll win if you just keep at it (a la RPGs) are not "better" either. the fact that you think the latter is required for "legitimate challenges" says a great deal more about the limited type of experiences you're looking for and nothing at all about design, really.
you're not owed saves, continues, or an ending screen. some games will make you work for it, and if that's not your thing, you play something else.
or you get good.
A Black Falcon
Member
I think it depends on the game -- for something like a fighting game, infinite continues are essential if you're going to have a really hard final boss. Think of how on Neo-Geo AES games, the fighting games generally have infinite continues, but Metal Slug games and shmups and such often have limited ones, and most games save level select or game progress files to the memory card. It's a good design.
Yes, apart from lacking high-score saving on AES games (though MVS games do have that) the Neo-Geo solution is, overall, a very good one -- you get limited continues with level select in games that are perfect for that style such as Metal Slug, and infinite continues with saving at that point in games perfect for that style such as The King of Fighters.
Sure, but if the game saves a high score table and you like the game, this should encourage players to keep playing and try to do better! Just because you beat an arcade game once doesn't mean you mastered it, that's for sure... and that's how it should be.
Actually that's a core part of what it is.
Challenge doesn't equal good design? If you really believe this, then why is most of your post what it is? Of course good arcade games are designed to reward skill, but what's best in an arcade is not the same thing as what's best in a home video game. Keeping the skill part is great, but requiring all players to reach some very high bar through limited saving and continues put in to cover up a severe lack of content (that you didn't add much to in the port) is not great design. I love a lot of games that do exactly that, but they could have been even better with some improvements.
But you're right there at the end of this quote, challenge alone isn't good design. There are a lot of elements to what makes good game design. For challenge you've got multiple factors -- how far are you sent back when you fail, how hard is the game and how long it is, etc.
As I said in my last post though, I think there is a huge difference between a game that wants you to replay the whole game a lot and a game which lets you have infinite continues or saving. For instance, comparing a game like Shinobi for the Master System which gives you three lives and then tells you to start the whole game over, versus Rolling Thunder for the NES which has passwords every level or two? Level to level both games are quite hard, but Rolling Thunder is perhaps more manageable despite its longer length and perhaps higher difficulty because it lets you save your progress through those passwords. It's still a super-hard (and super-amazing!) game. The passwords in no way detract from its brilliance. As good as Shinobi is Rolling Thunder is the better game for a good number of of reasons, and the passwords are one of them. Sure, challenging Shinobi and trying to get farther each time is fun and the game is pretty good and definitely rewards practice, but you can do that in Rolling Thunder as well if you want. Shinobi is not made a better game by not allowing you to continue!
That's not what I think is best in save systems and it's not what I said games should have, read the two paragraphs about console ports of arcade games since you didn't seem to before writing that post.
As for RPGs I didn't mention this there, but what I want from them is save anywhere when not in combat, not auto-checkpoints. Think PC RPGs like the [PC] Baldur's Gate games, or console RPGs such as the Lunar series. All RPGs should have save systems like that, it makes them better games. But of course the right save system for an RPG and a shmup are going to be different. Shmups don't need save anywhere, and only need between-level saving if they are particularly long versus the fairly-short genre average, though of course level select options are great in any shmup. That's something different, however.
This "limited type of experience" claim is pretty seriously wrong and off-base. Please reread my explanation of how different kinds of games should have different kinds of save systems, based on what kind of game they are, since you seem to have not paid attention to it. For some games a level select and high-score save is best; for others it's checkpoints and passwords or saving at the end of levels or something; for others it's save anywhere. It depends on the game.
Panzer Dragoon Zwei is not a 'limited experience' compared to the first Panzer Dragoon. The PC version of Sonic 3D Blast is not a 'limited experience' compared to the Genesis or Saturn versions. Sonic 3 & Knuckles is not a 'limited experience' compared to Sonics 1 or 2. Wonder Boy in Monster World is not a 'limited experience' compared to Wonder Boy in Monster Land or Cadash. The Playstation version of In the Hunt is not a 'limited experience' compared to the Saturn version. Etc etc etc. Save systems are a central part of game design, and in all of those cases the former game has saving and the latter doesn't, to the formers' advantage.
And on the other hand, the removal of saving from the US releases of PS1 games such as Gubble, Sorcerer's Maze, Mobile Light Force, and Sol Divide DOES make the American versions of those games limited experiences compared to their Japanese counterparts that do let you save your game.
My strong preference for games to have saving in no way limits what kinds of games I play, I play games that don't have saving all the time and love a lot of them. But games are better with saving.
You absolutely are and should be. Games without saving are, and always have been, poor design. Sometimes this is excusable, such as '80s games where putting a battery in a cart just to save high scores would be an expense few developers would make for understandable reasons, but very often it is not.
And here you say exactly the kind of elitist stuff you claim at the start of your post that "get good" isn't about.
Good point here about Ridge Racer, as I've said before I've never been able to entirely get why people loved that game so much when it only has 1 and a half tracks! That's not enough content, not even close. At least Daytona USA for the Saturn has three tracks, that's better even if it's still a thin amount of content. And something like Virtua Cop... yeah, that game is quite fun, but how long will it last versus the high price? Even with the limited continues you get, it won't take too long before it's over.
I definitely agree that the best home ports of arcade games are ports which add content to the original game. For some examples, one of my favorite games of all time is, of course, San Francisco Rush 2049's home version, which adds a lot of stuff versus the much simpler arcade original -- more modes, options, tracks, game design features (wings!), etc. Those added features are a huge part of why I love the game so much. Or look at the Turbografx and Turbo CD versions of Gradius 1 and Gradius 2, which each add a new exclusive level to the arcade game they are a port of, and end up better for it. The N64 versions of Cruis'n World and Cruis'n Exotica also do a good job of adding lots of content, including lots of cars to unlock, multiple modified alternate versions of each track, a campaign to play through, and more. Or look at the nice Combat School modes added to many CD ports of Metal Slug games, to give them added content versus the carts, not to mention the level-select save files that all home ports of Metal Slug games have, cart or CD. A straight arcade port can be a really great game, but they are even better when they add something to the original to make it last longer at home.
I agree with your position on this much more than I do the other side of this issue, certainly, for both saving and added content.
IrishNinja
Member
ABF im going to again break this to you: no one reads your walls of text in their entirety. you're verbose & you ramble and in some cases make very poor points. i'm trying to help you with that last part.
no - it's a sentiment that predates the souls series by a country mile; your disdain for this truth does't change that
accuse me of selective reading, then take my words directly out of context. masterfully done.
1) those limited saves/continues are an important part of that "keeping the skill" part you just said was great
2) so ports without added content are a negative now? i genuinely don't know why you play arcade-type experiences at all here
it's also not worse for it, nor is Rolling Thunder "better" for being designed with one - they're vastly different games, not just in genre but length/playtype etc. this comparison establishes nothing
SHMUPS don't need level saving at all, which is why the vast majority don't. it'd literally break the experience, which is a big element you're missing here because of how you want games to be.
again, you entirely miss the point - not all games/genres (and certainly not short arcade experiences) need saves/infinite continues/etc. you're now comparing different ports/entries of series just to establish how very much you like saves, in the games designed to have them.
who cares? some people preferred breaking MGS with 1st person view in Twin Snakes. if you're only about making the experience shorter/easier for yourself, and already fancy PC anyway, just use save states on emulators & call it a day.
but stop calling the swath of classics designed around not catering to your tastes/inability to practice & play a game as intended as "poorly designed".
no, ABF. game devs get to decide the rules, not you - if you can't beat Strider in one go, you practice until you can handle all 5 stages. you play on easy mode, maybe use a stick with rapid fire, you learn patterns/find hidden 1ups etc and you play it right.
or you don't, because it didn't interest you enough. but not simply catering to someone's lack of interest in your design & handing them the game the way Strider 2 did doesn't make it "poor design". you weren't owed that ending, because you didn't meet the developer halfway.
because that's all there is to it. go use save states & convince yourself you've "improved" the game.
me? ive got dozens of SHMUPs that ill likely never see the end of, because i don't put in the time to focus on one individually, learn its patterns, play bolder (closer to the front of the screen/etc) and practice chains/etc for extra lives. so when i run out of bombs & continues, that's as far as i got.
and that's a good thing, because it's the goddamn point of the game. there's probably only so many levels, and padding that out or giving me unlimited tries doesn't improve things: it actively defeats the purpose. if i don't want to invest the time to practice a racing game to improve my time/handling, and instead the game just lets me try again from any point until i win...why even bother? why not just watch it on YT/twitch, or go play any number of modern games meant to allow me to see it through without learning a thing?
get good. or go play the vast majority of titles that currently don't require that. that's not elitism; that's understanding design philosophy and respecting it.
no - it's a sentiment that predates the souls series by a country mile; your disdain for this truth does't change that
accuse me of selective reading, then take my words directly out of context. masterfully done.
1) those limited saves/continues are an important part of that "keeping the skill" part you just said was great
2) so ports without added content are a negative now? i genuinely don't know why you play arcade-type experiences at all here
it's also not worse for it, nor is Rolling Thunder "better" for being designed with one - they're vastly different games, not just in genre but length/playtype etc. this comparison establishes nothing
SHMUPS don't need level saving at all, which is why the vast majority don't. it'd literally break the experience, which is a big element you're missing here because of how you want games to be.
again, you entirely miss the point - not all games/genres (and certainly not short arcade experiences) need saves/infinite continues/etc. you're now comparing different ports/entries of series just to establish how very much you like saves, in the games designed to have them.
who cares? some people preferred breaking MGS with 1st person view in Twin Snakes. if you're only about making the experience shorter/easier for yourself, and already fancy PC anyway, just use save states on emulators & call it a day.
but stop calling the swath of classics designed around not catering to your tastes/inability to practice & play a game as intended as "poorly designed".
no, ABF. game devs get to decide the rules, not you - if you can't beat Strider in one go, you practice until you can handle all 5 stages. you play on easy mode, maybe use a stick with rapid fire, you learn patterns/find hidden 1ups etc and you play it right.
or you don't, because it didn't interest you enough. but not simply catering to someone's lack of interest in your design & handing them the game the way Strider 2 did doesn't make it "poor design". you weren't owed that ending, because you didn't meet the developer halfway.
because that's all there is to it. go use save states & convince yourself you've "improved" the game.
me? ive got dozens of SHMUPs that ill likely never see the end of, because i don't put in the time to focus on one individually, learn its patterns, play bolder (closer to the front of the screen/etc) and practice chains/etc for extra lives. so when i run out of bombs & continues, that's as far as i got.
and that's a good thing, because it's the goddamn point of the game. there's probably only so many levels, and padding that out or giving me unlimited tries doesn't improve things: it actively defeats the purpose. if i don't want to invest the time to practice a racing game to improve my time/handling, and instead the game just lets me try again from any point until i win...why even bother? why not just watch it on YT/twitch, or go play any number of modern games meant to allow me to see it through without learning a thing?
get good. or go play the vast majority of titles that currently don't require that. that's not elitism; that's understanding design philosophy and respecting it.
Yeah I'd say the art is in deciding what amount of continues on offer in a console port provides the best balance in term of challenge that isn't too hard but doesn't trivialize it so that everyone finishes it on their first try.
I'm not sure there's a single 3D platformer on Saturn you could call good. Unless you count Tomb Raider as one.
IrishNinja
Member
not sure where NiGHTS stands, but....damn
Astal & Clockwork are off for 3D, im forgetting stuff here
Astal & Clockwork are off for 3D, im forgetting stuff here
DXLelouch153
Banned
so did you guys here about the Konami tax in MGSV
sigh doesnt this game have enough strikes against it by now?
i really want Kojima to hurry up and go to a compamny i can actually support
sigh doesnt this game have enough strikes against it by now?
i really want Kojima to hurry up and go to a compamny i can actually support
Bar81
Member
Yeah, that's not what the SS is about. I would think the N64 is where it's at for that.
I know. I was just curious.
I'm more of a 3D Fighter guy, and the Saturn excels at that.
There are very little 3D platformers on Saturn to begin with so it's easy to check for yourself if you like the games or not before doing a purchase.
Croc is one, another one more obscure is NINPEN MANMARU by Enix.
Don't expect anything at the same level as some of the greatest of that gen though (Super Mario 64, Banjo Kazooie, Rayman 2, Rocket Robot on Wheels).
D.Lo
Member
I just went on a Saturn Street Fighter Zero binge and remembered something...
Capcom was really playing up the cheesecake on the game discs:
With the lone exeption of Ryu on SFC disc 2 lol.
I wish they did a re-release of Zero 2 to use the 4BM cart, Saturn Zero 2 without load times would be perfection.
Capcom was really playing up the cheesecake on the game discs:
With the lone exeption of Ryu on SFC disc 2 lol.
I wish they did a re-release of Zero 2 to use the 4BM cart, Saturn Zero 2 without load times would be perfection.
sixteen-bit
Member
not sure what this has to do with SS, lol
blast processed
Member
Be patient, it doesn't show up often but it can be found a lot cheaper than that.
Tomb Raider isn't bad. There are minor graphic differences between the PSX and Saturn version, but the SS version controls better due to the superior d-pad. I would recommend Burning Rangers if you speak Japanese because that version is much much cheaper than the english version which is north of $200.
This is what you purchased a Saturn for back in the 90's. You knew what you were getting . Virtua Fighter, Daytona, Virtua Cop, Die Hard Arcade. I picked these games up because I wanted an Arcade experience at home, thats what I wanted and thats what I got. I didn't expect extra levels because they were advertised as Arcade ports.
This explains a lot. Your PC elitist mentality has tainted you for sure these past 2 decades.. It's easy to look back now and pick apart what should have been. When you play these games now, do you judge them for how they stand up today, or do you play them for what they are and imagine what is was like during release?
Virtua Fighter 2 was, by far, my most-played Saturn game. I was around 8 when I got it. I didn't need a narrative to follow or characters to level up or anything like that to keep me interested. I just wanted to Press Start and play a fun game.
The "choice of playing it that way" is actually the default mode, the one expected by the creator of the game. You can decide your own rules that goes against the core of the game, but you can't expect the game to go along and let you do whatever without protesting.
Let's define an arcade game a bit, shall we? It's a game in which you put a coin in, get as far as you can and get a (high) score. That's it. The whole idea is gauging the player skill and give it a numerical value in the form of the score. You can put in another coin if you want to try to see more of the game, but even this isn't a given, as many game put you back to the beginning of the stage so a bad enough player with an infinite amount of coins can't see more of the game. Also notice how the score resets when you continue? That's because continuing is not part of the game, part of the intended experience; it's a gift to the player, but as any gift, shouldn't be expected. And again, if you're not good enough, an infinite amount of credits will get you nowhere.
tl;dr
Get good.
Being again a teen with free afternoon and also being stuck with a Saturn and Virtua Fighter 2/Sega Rally would be a dream.
Sigh...
brofist.jpg
I think one of the issues some people have with home arcade ports is that the ability to continue is artificially locked behind a finite number of credits, whereas the arcade was based on a pay-to-play model. Porting the game as closely as possible would theoretically allow for an unlimited amount of credits or free play. (Me being broke, and not having more than a few bucks to play the arcade, should be part of the meta-game, not the core experience.) Instituting a finite of credits on top of an established design, changes the game design, whether it's wiling to be acknowledged or not in this thread. I suppose it's one of the major drawbacks of the medium-shift from arcade to console.
Don't get me wrong, as I love arcade-game design, but it could be argued that there are more parallels between it and mobile phone game design, in this regard.
Games that employ a 'practice mode' or feature to non-linear level-select (think Elemental Master for Mega Drive) provide a solid solution to players by allowing them to access more of the game's content without be punished by not being good enough.
I shudder to think of all the unplayed content in the 8/16-bit era, just because I wasn't good enough to pass some of the levels.
IrishNinja
Member
ehhh yes and no. i really don't dig the mobile gaming analogy either: yeah there's arcade type games on there, but the model isn't as analogous as some here in gaming side make it, i think that vastly oversimplifies 2 different design approaches.
i also don't think adding infinite continues would, by default, create a closer port either - you're right that compromises need be made, but when many of said games are, as Khaz says, resetting your score & putting you back to the level's start - and in the case of many SHMUPs, dooming you without the weapons you were supposed to skillfully bring here - i think the point becomes a bit muddled there.
mind you, there's degrees here - i'm simply outright rejecting ABF's absurd notion that adding saves and infinite continues to all of these games inherently makes them better. there are no doubt rushed ports with the # of lives/continues/etc as a somewhat arbitrary number, and there are many where said #'s were a deliberate choice. still more, there's a lot of these types of titles (especially around sega's peak, the DC era) that feature arcade-type gameplay without receiving a coin-op release.
and while practice modes can be neat too, i think Khaz's point stands - that content that you or I never saw? that was the reward for putting in the time. it's a strange example, but it took me years as a kid to beat Alex Kidd in Miracle World, and each time i'd spend what seemed like hours just to catch a glimpse of a new level...typically to die to some new trap/enemy there that i wasn't ready for. i could've quit, but I choose to practice the earlier levels until they became easy, and I didn't lose men on the way - until i finished it.
this could've been circumvented entirely by a theoretical SMS game genie, or level select code...but then i'dve just rushed towards a text-based engrish ending, because the journey there was the point, and i'dve missed that.
i also don't think adding infinite continues would, by default, create a closer port either - you're right that compromises need be made, but when many of said games are, as Khaz says, resetting your score & putting you back to the level's start - and in the case of many SHMUPs, dooming you without the weapons you were supposed to skillfully bring here - i think the point becomes a bit muddled there.
mind you, there's degrees here - i'm simply outright rejecting ABF's absurd notion that adding saves and infinite continues to all of these games inherently makes them better. there are no doubt rushed ports with the # of lives/continues/etc as a somewhat arbitrary number, and there are many where said #'s were a deliberate choice. still more, there's a lot of these types of titles (especially around sega's peak, the DC era) that feature arcade-type gameplay without receiving a coin-op release.
and while practice modes can be neat too, i think Khaz's point stands - that content that you or I never saw? that was the reward for putting in the time. it's a strange example, but it took me years as a kid to beat Alex Kidd in Miracle World, and each time i'd spend what seemed like hours just to catch a glimpse of a new level...typically to die to some new trap/enemy there that i wasn't ready for. i could've quit, but I choose to practice the earlier levels until they became easy, and I didn't lose men on the way - until i finished it.
this could've been circumvented entirely by a theoretical SMS game genie, or level select code...but then i'dve just rushed towards a text-based engrish ending, because the journey there was the point, and i'dve missed that.
blast processed
Member
This is why there is a ton of hand holding and auto saves around every corner in most games today.
Shadow Hog
Member
Croc has tank controls, so yeah, they're... certainly more than workable, but not the best.
Although what really annoys me about the game's controls are that in every version, the buttons/keys for "turn" and the ones for "strafe" swap with each other when you're in mid-air. I have difficulty with the whack-a-sheep minigame for an early stage's bonus Gobbo as a result. (That sentence makes sense in-context.)
Although what really annoys me about the game's controls are that in every version, the buttons/keys for "turn" and the ones for "strafe" swap with each other when you're in mid-air. I have difficulty with the whack-a-sheep minigame for an early stage's bonus Gobbo as a result. (That sentence makes sense in-context.)
I don't think that point is really up for contention; limiting the amount of continues is certainly not in line with the arcade's game original design, and is a pretty significant change. You can't just arbitrarily decide to suddenly limit how many credits a player should have to complete/progress throughout the game (especially with all other game design elements intact), just because crunching quarters is no longer a variable. This change significantly alters the inherent design of the game, even if it seems subtle. I'm not going to weigh in on whether or not the change is for better or worse (that's too subjective) but it's undeniable that it changes the game's design. Like I said before, quarters were the meta-game in the arcades, just as opting to try and 1CC the game at home is.
IrishNinja
Member
of course it's a change - but if the opposite is leaving every title up as thought it were on free play somehow, then no, i absolutely don't think that's the better option. agreed on much of the rest though.
I am probably going to add Sonic R. It feels more of a platformer with racing tacked onto it...Technically Travellers Tales did some amazing stuff here.
Pademonium I would advise to get the japanese version (Magical Hoppers) because I feel the characters designs are much better.
Maybe even add Dark Savior with it's platforming action RPG elements, Willy Wombat, Would even Saturn Bomerman Fight be considered platforming?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVlYtRSZcIs
IrishNinja
Member
huh....it's not often i see Sonic R endorsed for something beyond its soundtrack
I actually wonder if Sega contacted Travellers Tales much earlier during the Saturns life there would probably be a lot more racing and platforming games using TT's 3D engine.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2IbrWCAnOY
Similar threads
- Poll