|
Sengoku
Apr 15, 2007 15:39:09 GMT -5
Post by Discoalucard on Apr 15, 2007 15:39:09 GMT -5
hg101.classicgaming.gamespy.com/sengoku/sengoku.htmI totally agree with this article - the first Sengoku is pretty meh, and the second is much better but still not great, but the third is fantastic. I should put more time in Gaia Crusaders as well, and maybe do an article on that too.
|
|
|
Sengoku
Apr 15, 2007 16:31:39 GMT -5
Post by kyouki on Apr 15, 2007 16:31:39 GMT -5
I hope SNK will put out a Sengoku collection. Quick, SNK... WHILE THERE'S STILL TIME!! Personally, I always felt that the beat em up genre reached its heights with Double Dragon 1 and 2, and the NES ports of those two games. And then Double Dragon Advance. I always felt Final Fight and its ilk were a huge step down from the Double Dragon games in terms of number of moves and depth. Though SoR3 has plenty of moves in it, so that one is pretty good.
|
|
|
Sengoku
Apr 15, 2007 16:54:30 GMT -5
Post by zzz on Apr 15, 2007 16:54:30 GMT -5
About a month ago, while I was writing that fighter thing, I realized that Technos is probably the most important developer in having defined fighting in video games ever. This got me to look into beat-em-ups more, a genre that I had never really liked, and find that there are actually several pretty good games if you bother to look for them. I also was able to see a appeal in the genre that I had never really seen before. As in, I "got" the genre for the first time. This lead to a more general appretiation of the genre, which lead to the decision to write "Capcom's Other Beat-em-ups".
That being said, this is very nice to see here, and I would like to see more representation of beat-em-ups here in general. It also gives me the urge to go look for Sengoku 3 and Gaia Crusaders again, as I never really gave those much of a chance to begin with.
About DD vs FF: I always felt that there are two general styles of beat-em-ups. First is those that are based more on what the player is doing. These are mostly about combos and special forms of combat. Second is those that are based more on competition between the player and individual opponents. These often require proper execution of advanced techniques to win against enemies that often have the same general abilities as the playable characters. Capcom are probably the best example of the former, and Technos are probably the best example of the latter. Both can be great if exectued properly. While I like DD1 and DD2 better than FF1 and FF2, I like FF3 and RoDD about equally and better than any of those others. Taking it back to Sengoku, this series would be a example of the former, more FF-ish kind.
|
|
|
Sengoku
Apr 15, 2007 17:00:47 GMT -5
Post by kyouki on Apr 15, 2007 17:00:47 GMT -5
I just must be missing something but every time I play a game like FF/Turtles In Time/etc it just feels like hitting the punch button a million times against enemies that are mostly palette swaps while slowly progressing along a completely flat horizontal plane. I liked the DD games because they had a ton of moves and a few platforming elements to break up the monotony. Just not my cup of tea I guess, but I just don't see a lot of variety in this genre and would actually like for someone more knowledgeable than me to explain the appeal. For example, what separates a good FF player from a bad one? If I was watching a master FF player play the game, what would it look like?
|
|
|
Sengoku
Apr 15, 2007 17:56:58 GMT -5
Post by zzz on Apr 15, 2007 17:56:58 GMT -5
I just must be missing something but every time I play a game like FF/Turtles In Time/etc it just feels like hitting the punch button a million times against enemies that are mostly palette swaps while slowly progressing along a completely flat horizontal plane. I liked the DD games because they had a ton of moves and a few platforming elements to break up the monotony. Just not my cup of tea I guess, but I just don't see a lot of variety in this genre and would actually like for someone more knowledgeable than me to explain the appeal. For example, what separates a good FF player from a bad one? If I was watching a master FF player play the game, what would it look like? Firstly, I refer back to my comment about the two general styles. The give-the-player-something-to-do style, and the give-the-player-somthing-to-compete-against style. For the latter, look at RCR. Your opponents are pretty much exactly the same as your character, and they are very good at blocking, which is difficult to time correctly for most people. So the appeal of the combat, other than the RPG elements and the flawlessness of the execution, is in taking down opponents that you are pretty evenly matched with skill wise. For the former, look at FF3. A lone attack button to fight with, but many combos and moves to perform with it. As well as a decent amount of freedom in it's combo system. So the appeal of the combat is in executing the methods that the game gives you to dispose of enemies with. That is why enemies are mindless drones in these kinds of beat-em-ups. They are simply fodder for the player to beat the crap out of. In the Technos style, it could be argued that victories are individual. While in the Capcom style, it could be argued that victories are achieved against a cumulative horde. Sort of making the level itself your opponent. This is a bad way to put both of these, but hopefully you get what I am trying to say. It is also imporatant to note a constant element to beat-em-ups. They have hordes of opponents that come at your character from both sides of screen. This more or less forces players to stay away from the sides as the can get "snuck up on" by opponents just entering the screen if they do not. So there is no way to avoid being swarmed by enemies from both sides. Forcing players toward the middle of the screen and having them swarmed from both sides creates a artificial two sided area. Meaning the action on screen is divided between what is approaching from in front of your character and what is approaching from behind your character. Both general styles have their own general way of dealing with this. Both ways are based around the same goal: To allow the player to control both sides of the screen equally at the same time. Technos' way of dealing with this is the left and right attack buttons. They also had counters in some games, or the ability to hold a enemy while attacking in the other direction at the same time, or throws of varying kinds, and perhaps some other methods as well. Capcom's way of dealing with this is combos. This allows multiple enemies to be dealt with at the same time, or for players to combo into a throw to hit enemies behind their character, or whatever else. Their games also had other techniques as well to deal with what was going on on both sides of the screen, but combos were the primary method. Also of note is that most Capcom style beat-em-ups have relatively lengthy hit recovery times, allowing for players to hit a enemy and then turn around and hit others. What would a expert FF player play like? Well, Capcom's beat-em-ups were not all the same, but with FF it mostly requires memorization and timing, and perhaps trying to keep a fair distance between your character and any that you are not currently attacking, so you are less likely to get attacked from behind while beating the crap out of somebody.
|
|
|
Sengoku
Apr 15, 2007 19:26:45 GMT -5
Post by kyouki on Apr 15, 2007 19:26:45 GMT -5
It makes sense, thanks for typing all of that. I've never seen anyone play a game like FF or SOR proficiently (mostly it's just been a continue fest), so it's hard for me to picture it. I guess I should watch some runs on youtube or something.
I guess the Dynasty Warriors games would sort of fall into the swarm category you mentioned? They're pretty similar to the old beat em ups in a way... swarms of identical looking enemies that are pretty dumb, flat (some would say boring) levels that merely serve as a place to fight the swarm, etc, and a focus on placement/reach and defending all sides.
|
|
|
Sengoku
Apr 15, 2007 19:53:07 GMT -5
Post by Allie on Apr 15, 2007 19:53:07 GMT -5
"SNK made Magician Lord"
Actually, they didn't. Magician Lord was created by ADK/Alpha Denshi, who for the longest time seemed to be the only company besides SNK to make games for the Neo...
Also, wasn't Legend of Success Joe produced by WAVE Corporation?
|
|
|
Sengoku
Apr 15, 2007 21:26:02 GMT -5
Post by Discoalucard on Apr 15, 2007 21:26:02 GMT -5
For awhile I thought ADK was simply a subsidiary of SNK. Maybe they're not? SNK Playmore seems to own the rights for their stuff though.
Dunno who made Legend of Success Joe, but that's discussing how horrible it is, not the company who produced it.
I have a grudge against that game. Don't ask.
|
|
|
Sengoku
Apr 16, 2007 1:25:10 GMT -5
Post by Allie on Apr 16, 2007 1:25:10 GMT -5
ADK had made at least one Master System game (Time Soldiers), so I'm not entirely sure....
Though, it's possible SNK bought them out at some point in time... Possibly around the time when Ninja Masters and World Heroes Perfect came out... (as that's when the games started being billed as "SNK/ADK" and not just Alpha Denshi Corp.)
According to Wikipedia, ADK broke off from SNK in the late 80s, then SNK bought the company's IP in 1996....
|
|
|
Sengoku
Apr 16, 2007 3:51:51 GMT -5
Post by zzz on Apr 16, 2007 3:51:51 GMT -5
I could be mistaken, but I believe that ADK was merely a division of SNK.
|
|
|
Sengoku
Apr 16, 2007 3:59:43 GMT -5
Post by chaoticgood on Apr 16, 2007 3:59:43 GMT -5
I could be mistaken, but I believe that ADK was merely a division of SNK. I thought they were a different company, but if Wikipedia is correct (no idea if it is), they're kind of both. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_DenshiIt says they were first a division, who separated into a different company... Then when they bankrupted, SNK bought rights to their stuff, which is why they could put ADK characters into Battle Coliseum.
|
|
|
Sengoku
Apr 16, 2007 4:09:03 GMT -5
Post by ninjarygar on Apr 16, 2007 4:09:03 GMT -5
"Legend of Success Joe" is a great game... because of the name alone. One of my favorites.
Anyway though... I remember playing through Sengoku 3, and while yes it had cool characters, and very nice graphics... I thought it was really tedious and boring... EVEN FOR a beat em up. Enemies had too much HP and took too long to defeat. Wave after wave of the same things that took too long the first time made the game unenjoyable for me.
|
|
|
Sengoku
Apr 16, 2007 8:10:21 GMT -5
Post by Revolver Ocelot on Apr 16, 2007 8:10:21 GMT -5
Saying SNK didn't produce Magician Lord is like saying Nintendo didn't produce Kirby.
|
|
|
Sengoku
Apr 16, 2007 12:37:00 GMT -5
Post by Weasel on Apr 16, 2007 12:37:00 GMT -5
The main draw for FF-style beat-em-ups, to me, is doing battle with tons of mooks (unremarkable, generally weak characters) at once. I love having swarms of generic thugs rush towards me and being able to knock most of them over with a few good punches. I also love being able to throw one guy into a crowd of five or six guys.
That's about the same reason I prefer games like Doom over stuff like Quake 2 - the fact that you're facing several weaker enemies at once as opposed to fewer, stronger foes.
|
|
|
Sengoku
Apr 16, 2007 21:03:24 GMT -5
Post by Allie on Apr 16, 2007 21:03:24 GMT -5
Saying SNK didn't produce Magician Lord is like saying Nintendo didn't produce Kirby. Not to start an argument, but in my opinion, it's more like saying that Konami didn't produce Gunstar Heroes. (A team that was once part of one company breaks off and starts making their own stuff) Though, if at some point Treasure had to sell off their IP rights (and assuming that GH's rights don't still belong to Sega), and Konami bought them, would you say Konami produced it?
|
|