Rumor: Strider 3/HD?

[derboo]

I'd prefer a new Osman over a new Strider any time.

Also, if they just have to make it "Metroidvania", then more Metroid and much less vania, please.

[Ganelon]

Aug 19, 2009 11:09:45 GMT -5 Ike said:

The only way Strider could be made better is if they make it into a Metroidvania. If any character deserves that, it's Strider.

Oh man, what an awful suggestion... Still leagues better than a 3D Strider Hiryu though.

Anyway, if Backbone makes an HD Remix (which I highly doubt Capcom would be willing to invest) and as long as it doesn't have multiplayer, I think I can trust them not to screw something up.

COTM was really easy. I died like 2 times in that game total. It gets an unwarranted reputation as a difficult game IMO. I also found OOE really easy if it weren't for the boss trophies. Then again, it's not like Strider was a hard game. It's easily 1CC'able in a week with a few hours practice every day. I don't really care if a game is easy or hard but one of the prevailing misconceptions are that older games were noticeably harder. While arcade-oriented games generally were to take in quarters, most console games aren't too challenging. The NES Contra and Castlevania are all moderately difficult 1-week games.

I also don't agree with anti-Strider 2 sentiment one bit. I think it's much better and more exciting than the original (which was an excellent game in its own right). It's funny control is mentioned when Strider 2 allows midair control, something that neither the original or Cannon Dancer offers. It offers more interesting scenarios than the other games as well (scaling walls, 3D rotation, midair jumping, more settings). I think I still like the graphical style of Cannon Dancer more but Strider 2 is far more refreshing.

[justjustin]

All console exclusive games are easy by default. They are meant to be finished, and sooner rather than later. Even "difficult" recent console games like Devil May Cry, Ninja Gaiden, etc. include easier modes and ways to grind (spend time) for power-ups (if you are not good enough in the first place). Console games offer the player more control over difficulty, essentially creating their own personal experience-- as easy or hard as they please. This is no different than it was 20 years ago, which is one of reasons why I disagree with that article's quotes. When people refer to those "old, tough-as-nails" games, more often than not they are referring to arcade ports. Arcade games were more prolific back then, and so they migrated to consoles and often inspired console exclusive games to (somewhat) follow suit. Also, more often than not, these ports were made easier.

The reason why console games are easier now than before (in addition to there being fewer arcade-related games/ports) is not because of spoiled boo-hooing, wimpy children, but because developers have wizened up and realized that the best way to make money with console games is to make them easy while feigning challenge. It doesn't matter if people play for 5 years or 5 minutes, they only had to pay one price. By making them easy, they are completed faster and less reason to replay them (oh, but they have art galleries and extra modes-- this is merely filling the "content" requirement so consumers don't complain they got ripped off). It all adds up to buying the next game in a series, or more games in general-- faster. It's damaging for a player to spend too much time on a console game, quite the opposite from the arcade model.

edit: by the way ganelon canon dancer/osman does have mid-air control, more than Strider 2, even.

[derboo]

Aug 19, 2009 18:34:44 GMT -5 justjustin said:

The reason why console games are easier now than before (in addition to there being fewer arcade-related games/ports) is not because of spoiled boo-hooing, wimpy children, but because developers have wizened up and realized that the best way to make money with console games is to make them easy while feigning challenge. It doesn't matter if people play for 5 years or 5 minutes, they only had to pay one price. By making them easy, they are completed faster and less reason to replay them (oh, but they have art galleries and extra modes-- this is merely filling the "content" requirement so consumers don't complain they got ripped off). It all adds up to buying the next game in a series, or more games in general-- faster. It's damaging for a player to spend too much time on a console game, quite the opposite from the arcade model.

Funny, it works exactly the other way round with me. Usually, the faster a game can be finished, the more time I seem to spend with it.
a 20+ hour shooter or 50+ hour RPG is played once, while I spend a lot of time on a crisp 10-or-less-hour action game on higher difficulty levels, unlocking stuff, achievements etc. (Latest examples for me: Mirror's Edge and Ghost Busters). Most of the new games I've played this year offered reasonably hard challenges and multiple difficulty levels. While they may give one kind of player the "played through" label pretty fast and easily, this is not at all true for "beaten everything" another kind wants.

[dire51]

Aug 19, 2009 17:44:08 GMT -5 thethird said:

Something tells me that whoever wrote that article hasn't spent time playing some of the harder games of recent generations.

To be fair, that article was intended to be humorous, satirical even. But in every bit of satire there is a kernel of truth. Or something like that.

[sunwoo]

A new Strider would be cool, it has to be 2d of course. Anything else? DO NOT WANT!

Also, just to shake the topic a bit:

Old school and up to Symphony of the Night Castlevania>>>>Every Metroid ever made

*go gets some marshmallows and sausages*

[justjustin]

derboo, that's true. I only cooked up that theory from personal experience, mostly. I've never been one to go for unlockables or multiple playthroughs on different difficulties. I'm sort of ambivalent about how newer games treat length. So many revolve around the model of playing through the entire game to, say, unlock one final section of the game or a super secret boss or something which you have to play through again to finally see (or something along those lines). A lot don't even have all the difficulties available until it's been beaten on the normal/easier difficulties. I feel this is an artificial way to lengthen a game or "improve" its replay value. If it's enjoyable enough to be played again, why keep things like difficulty modes restricted in the first place? It's frustrating for people who want to jump right in a do as much as possible in one playthrough.

I'm still under the impression that newer games are geared towards the hope that people will burn through 'em faster. It seems like a really delicate balancing act to me, following all sorts of strange rules-- has to be long enough to be "worth" the 60 dollars and get good reviews, needs to include extra things to warrant a replay, needs to give the player as much freedom as possible when playing the game (choosing how hard or easy it is) to accommodate everyone. I think as they become more palatable they become easier. Also, I just want to make clear I don't think easy/hard is necessarily better or worse (I'm being mindful not to use those words ). It definitely depends on what kind of game it is and personal preference.

[thethird]

Aug 19, 2009 21:30:07 GMT -5 dire51 said:

Aug 19, 2009 17:44:08 GMT -5 thethird said:

Something tells me that whoever wrote that article hasn't spent time playing some of the harder games of recent generations.

To be fair, that article was intended to be humorous, satirical even. But in every bit of satire there is a kernel of truth. Or something like that.

D'oh! I should've known

[wyrdwad]

I'm just gonna jump in, and say YAY TO STRIDERVANIA. Every game ever - and I mean *every* game - could be improved by being made into a Metroidvania. There is no greater type of game on this planet, and if done well, Metroidvanias trump all else. And as NES Strider has shown us, making Strider into a Metroidvania IS possible, and DOES work VERY WELL.

Another NES-style Strider, but with a more thoroughly interconnected world, would be the greatest thing ever.

-Tom

[Smithee]

I sort of agree. I'd like a 3-D game, with a mix of genres in the gameplay, telling a really epic story-line. A completely new story too, not an actual sequel to the other games.

Kind of like the Dragon Ball game coming out on Wii, but for the PSP ;D And Strider ;D ;D

edit: For example, I'd like to see much more detail on the political standing in the world, and more stuff with the new technologies.

How about 2-D acrobatics, where fighting is mostly quick dispatches used for maneuvering (jump on cipher, jump off and kill it at the same time, reaching the height). This'd be cool, because you'd die a lot if you don't do the right thing. Kind of like an action puzzle. "How do I get past THIS one?!"

And for the people wanting a 3-D game, you get a quick paced beat-em-up/3-D platforming type thing, but enemies are of course killed quite fast (like in Strider and 2) and you get to climb and platform and such.

And then, maybe running type things, with cool stunts? So it'd be like a QTE, only you'd actually do what happens and it wouldn't tell you? Or maybe there'd be a small notification, but I'd rather not. So you're running forward, and you have to press jump at the ledge-point, or off the wall. And attack at the breakable part. Stuff like that. And you'd be able to go left/right of course.

And that'd be it for the most part other than specialized vehicle sections for fun. So you can use your hang-glider, or escape in a car and stuff.

I'd say more, but that'd be way too cluttered. So it really is just 2 types and 2 other little things interspersed.

Although, for boss fights, perhaps there could be things sort of like a fighting game? So that'd be it mostly, until the bastard runs away, and you have to climb up a tower, and then fight him more. He could like, get into a helecopter, and you'd have to go into the "auto-run better than QTE" segment, and chase after him, until you catch him there, and you knock him out of the helecopter.

So then his four goons would be sent at you and you'd get the beat-em-up/platform part, and you'd beat them up, and then fight him in the fighting game thing for a bit more until he dies.


I think that'd be EPIC.

(Oh, and Wyrd, I think some of the sections should be kinda like Metroid, and you'd get to explore. Plus, maybe you could return to stages, but in a way like in Xenosaga, so it would make more sense. Only sometimes, because it COULD make sense in certain cases)

[dire51]

Aug 19, 2009 22:24:25 GMT -5 wyrdwad said:

Every game ever - and I mean *every* game - could be improved by being made into a Metroidvania.

Damn it all! Now you've got me thinking about how a Tetrisvania would work.

And on a side note, since I haven't said anything about it yet: I loved Strider 2, although I felt the choppiness (namely, the transition from substage to substage) in the game detracted from it. I certainly didn't like it more than the original Strider arcade game, but I did like it more than the NES game.

[wyrdwad]

Tetrisvania sounds like the greatest idea I've ever heard. (:

-Tom

[Warchief Onyx]

I hope you get to play as L-Block in that one.

[Smithee]

You'd get powers to turn into different blocks, of course, and to destroy bosses you'd fit into them.

[dire51]

I think that's how you'd unlock doors too. Of course, the "castle" you explore would have to be Saint Basil's Cathedral - or at least, a 'Trisvania'd version of it.