Am I a zoomer if I don't like beat-em-ups? I feel like you had to be there.
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
Am I a zoomer if I don't like beat-em-ups? I feel like you had to be there.
Am I a zoomer if I don't like beat-em-ups? I feel like you had to be there.
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
>I feel like you had to be there.
pretty much. they are all the same game reskinned. mindless time wasters. fun back then, not so much now, unless you have the nostalgia for them.
all I can say is "see how far you can get with one credit and tell me there's no mechanical mastery in these games again"
beat-em-ups are fricking awesome but poisoned by "cynical veteran gamer" takes like &
from people who insist they have no real gameplay appeal & are a relic of the past driven purely by then-impressive graphics & sound. it's old game journalists' autopilot attitudes like "give us something new" & "every game becomes immediately dated" recycled by today's youtubers & writers - the types who think arcade design has no merit & is just shallow exploitative coin-munching. "fun with friends" is also essentially a way of saying a game is shit because everything is fun with friends.
no one really understands the on-the-spot strategizing, target prioritization & crowd control behind these games' design (along with primal reflex-based skills too), as perfectly shown by comparing Streets of Rage & Final Fight's design to modern beat em ups that try to "modernize a dated shallow formula" by just making 2D Devil May Cry-wannabes.
>word salad with technobabble terms you made up
theyre dumb, simple vidya games anon. just because you autistically delve into how they are programmed and enjoy the meta of it doesnt represent the 99.99% of people who arent going to experience the games like that whatsoever
they have infinitely more substance than whatever jarpig you're playing now
turn-based japanese rpgs have mechanical depth too, they're just way more noob-friendly cuz they allow grinding which has become a genre-defining crutch cuz everyone uses it - even though it's still just that, a crutch
there's a reason competitive pokemon is a thing
>they're just way more noob-friendly cuz they allow grinding
that's like 99% games in the genre, if it has random encounters/grinding it's automatically shit.
fixed encounters ("tactical) rpgs are more decent but it's not like they have chess depth either
that's like saying Donkey Kong Country Returns is an inherently shit platformer cuz the pig lets you skip levels. no one is forcing you to go the cheap route - grinding is like a level skip in a Nintendo platformer.
the fact that you can only give faint praise to SRPGs is also telling. chess is one of the best games ever created, no shit they're not gonna be as perfect.
nig the problem isn't grinding itself, random encounters is a garbage mechanic and just a cheap way to make a long game with 90% dead time, don't compare a properly designed game to that.
I haven't really thought about the deeper design purpose behind random encounters (I'm sure a more dedicated player than me can do it) but I don't know if I really care that much cuz a game with them can still be mechanically fun. it's weird to say one of the better Pokemon or SMT games is inherently shit cuz "muh random encounters".
what is so mechanically fun about 99% of breaindead text selecting? you just have low standards if you fun that remotely fun or comparable to a properly designed game.
>muh SMT
smt was the last jarpig i gave a try and it was like 10 times longer than it deserved to be.
it's fun to build a team & strategize & try to do everything at the lowest level you can. you can simplify any genre that way
>what's so fun about shmups, you're just brainlessly shooting shit, where's the CONTENT
Don't engage.
actually WAIT A SECOND. if you want a really mechanically autistic Japanese RPG focused on in-depth turn-based combat check out Medabots. GBA/Core is a good place to start. they're obviously games made for some Japanese kid to play all throughout summer vacation, like a project
your opinion is shit
>there's a reason competitive pokemon is a thing
What does that have to do with grinding?
In competitive Pokemon all Pokemon are scaled to level 50, there's no disparity between players.
>In competitive Pokemon all Pokemon are scaled to level 50, there's no disparity between players.
That's a recent thing, plus you still have to grind EVs and do other stuff like breeding for good stats or getting items to equip. You're right though, that's all separate from the actual competitive battling when it's happening.
The option to scale to the same levels was a great choice honestly, I never had a battle as kid in Red/Blue where one player wasn't massively higher levels than the other.
what "meta"? I can't even do the autistic exploits in Final Fight yet. I wish I could though & that's not an excuse to say a game is stupid (comboing in Street Fighter 2 was initially an exploit after all).
do you think people who played the shit out of these games in the arcades didn't get better at them to progressively lower their credit use? if you can't play a good beat-em-up & figure out all the cleverness that goes into the level design you have a baby's understanding of games. it's not about understanding programming but mastering the obvious depth & mastery the devs put in front of you.
Imagine the gameplay
inb4 "nostalgiagay" - nope, all I had as a kid was the Japanese version of Double Dragon 3 on my Famiclone that I briefly co-opped with my dad. I only got into arcade or arcade-like beat-em-ups through emulation in the mid-2000s and only in the 2010s did I start taking them more seriously, trying to improve my runs and really understand the mechanics.
>no one really understands the on-the-spot strategizing, target prioritization & crowd control
Everyone does in fact understand it. That's in every game though. I play a scroll shooter, I need to do all of those things, except I also have a good game to play
see
To this day I fricking despise what they did to Cody's character after Final Fight. I fricking hate the whole nihilistic prisoner bullshit. OG Cody was a good guy.
>The only way to play these games is to autistically exploit spawns and quirks of an old control scheme
Fixed your shit for you
exploits exist in all games, dummy! again, comboing in SF2 was initially an exploit too. if you can't see how mixing & matching enemy waves, level layouts & "architecture" (maybe a bit of a strong word but guiding enemies through the levels by taking note of the simple geometric shapes they're made of, whether to destroy phone booths or not blahblah clearly matters), weapons, enemy movement & attack patterns, item drops etc allows for variety and both good & bad design depending on the skill of the devs I dunno what to say.
you're essentially saying the ONLY way to be pretty decent at Final Fight or Streets of Rage is to break the game and use exploits which is dumb. you can exploit, for example, Sodom with stuff the devs didn't intend but you can still beat him without dying once by just having good planned-out footwork/jumping & reflexes & keeping him in your control.
and I dunno if chaining together the two aerial attacks was unintended at all. it's a pretty obvious mechanic.
also you can say that's not enough for a game & go "I WANT MOOOOOORE.." like a Disney princess all you want (that's just different taste in games) but focusing your game around mastering the intricacies of a simple set of mechanics just makes for a very specific type of experience that's not inherently lesser. Pac-Man would be a radically different game if it had various power-ups & abilities.
Anon i agree with you about technical mastery and all but damn this is autistic. You don't have to freak out the second some uninformed mook pukes out an opinion you disagree with. Try a little nuance to better win others to your perspective.
>as perfectly shown by comparing Streets of Rage & Final Fight's design to modern beat em ups that try to "modernize a dated shallow formula" by just making 2D Devil May Cry-wannabes
Are you one of those guys that hates SoR4? That game is awesome.
I don't hate it but I don't think its additions are an inherent improvement over the old games
There are many issues in SoR3, but some additions like running, rolling and special gauge are not one of them. SoR4 lacks the improvements of 3 and the OST is not as good as 1 and 2. Even the addition of 1 and 2 soundtrack got fricked up.
SoR4 is not a bad game, but it does look like one compared to SoRR, a fan project avaliable for free.
Pic inrelated.
SoR4 is really fun. All the negatives I hear are it's too different from the other games.
from what I gathered it's a mix of legitimately bad localization (censorship removing charm like the flamboyant gay guy + upping the difficulty so kids can't finish it on rentals) + way less poppy/melodic music + darker visuals
Sor4 is ruined by every boss having hyper armor rather than fun mechanics to get around.
Also the last boss is a shitty gimmick fight.
What is hyper armor in beat-em-ups and how is it different from super armor?
Super armor absorbs 1-2 hits, hyper armor means its always active.
The terms refer to immunity to hitstun states right?
Yeah.
Dunno, I just remember everything absorbing hits constantly and it's the lazy way to design fights so you don't have to actually design anything. The actual stages and enemy fights were great, then you get to a boss and it's like, "Oh this shit again."
Last fight is still inexcusable garbage for a finale.
>every boss having hyper armor
Only the Daft Punk boss has hyper armour, and maybe the Super Saiyan Galsia (if the dominatrix boss whips a Galsia, they transform). And I think the Divas have 1 (one) move which cannot be interrupted? The rest of them only have invincibility on stand up, exactly like in SOR2. They might have a few super attacks which they cannot be knocked out of, but SOR2 bosses had a bunch of those too.
Or do you mean that rage bullshit they all go through mid-fight? Yeah, that part is annoying, they should've made the effect shorter.
That's just a different design decision, probably because it's much easier to combo things to death. Though I agree the last boss is lame.
if you think double dragon ff and d&d are the same game you are legit morond
>they are all the same game reskinned.
This is like saying SFII and Tekken 3 are the same game reskinned.
Perfect example of a moron that doesnt understand them.
Yeah, Streets of Rage, King of Dragons, and Ninja Warriors are all the same game.
If you don't enjoy challenging arcade games and the idea of beating them on one credit then you're not going to like the genre.
The main attraction was playing with friends. Game play was always pretty shallow.
This. Some of them managed to allow up to 4 players, it was very fun to gang on a single arcade cabinet with your friends, complaining about the dumbest stuff, and survive enough time to not waste your chances. They were the first true multiplayer games, more than a 1vs1 fight of racers and fighting games. And they're still fun nowadays, but they'll always shine only in multi.
The gameplay isn't actually shallow, as
pointed out. There are deep beat-em-ups and simple ones. But I agree that the main appeal was the multiplayer.
On a side note, it's funny how broken the elbow is in Double Dragon. Easy game to 1cc because the elbow wrecks everything.
I think beat-em-ups are pretty stupid in general, but i spent more time than i want to admit on this particular one, trying to unlock outfits and moves for the girls lel
Beat 'em ups are not a one size fits all type of thing. You have your Final Fight and Streets of Rage games, but then you also have stuff like Die Hard Arcade and Wario World. If it's just the older style of beat 'em ups you dislike, maybe try some of the later ones. Heck even the Turtles games are pretty different from some of the other beat 'em ups of the time.
speaking of die hard arcade/dynamite cop: the second game is the most easy-to-1cc beat-em-up I've ever played. so obviously beginner-friendly, fair & always offers you a fighting chance as long as you're paying attention. yet people still call it a mindless button-mashing coin-muncher. it's so silly
I've only played the first game so far but I am interested in the second one. I did try Fighting Force on PS1 and while it's okay I prefer Die Hard Arcade, something about the goofy style and smoother/simpler gameplay just works
but also I wanna point out that the arcade version of Turtles in Time (not so much the original) encourages picking the turtle with the best range & spamming a single move over and over if you wanna "get good" at it. the SNES version's way better balanced (for one it offers you more control over throws) which makes it much more fun to try to master. that said I've not played the Japanese version of Turtles in Time arcade - maybe the US-only changes fricked it up? I know those changes took a big fat doo doo over Konami's Simpsons game.
the original arcade game's way better about that though. just compare 1cc runs
>this topic again
why cant you homosexuals just make a thread without the "AM I THE ONLY ONE?" or "IS IT JUST ME OR????"
games are fun, talk about them, stop pretending like you don't enjoy shit and baiting others to respond
it's not pretending really. "classic beat-em-ups like Final Fight and Streets of Rage are inherently dated" has been the default opinion for ages even if it's wrong
2 is way easier but really fun. I'm total shit at the original but I can still acknowledge it as a great game
still need to play Asian Dynamite
>OP should stop saying [things he didn't actually say]
Stop getting triggered by imaginary scenarios
I was there and I still don't like them
>duuude it's about positioning and timing
So is every genre, but most don't stop there
so is pac-man shit cuz your controls & abilities are very limited & it lacks "content"? hard-to-master simplicity is an appeal in and of itself
No anon Pac-Man is massively popular today and the maze genre is played by millions. What do you think? Yes Pac-Man was only popular because of when it came out, it's not really very good which is why nobody gives a shit about it now. Neither is Donkey Kong. I'm sorry I have to attack holy cows here, let me add that Bomberman, Defender, Frogger and Donkey Kong 2 are good just so that you don't call me a contrarian. Not everything that was popular is good, some of it was just early enough for nobody to notice how shit it is.
nah Pac-Man & Donkey Kong rule. Donkey Kong controls weirdly compared to modern platformers so I get people being put off by it but GENERALLY games like Pac-Man aren't well-liked anymore because retro gaming communities fricking suck at promoting them and getting young people into them (Cinemassacre is way better than most, especially Mike Matei for all his flaws). kids sploodged over Among Us and that's way simpler than Pac-Man.
Not everything unpopular is bad, your argument is invalid. Popular things have mass appeal, that doesn't negate niche appeal for the unpopular.
I feel like generally the internet will dismiss a lot of retro games situated in the middle ground between "simple to play, hard to master" 1-screen affairs like Tetris or Pac-Man and "epic adventures" a la Super Mario Bros. 3 or Zelda. I came to this conclusion when I thought about why The Legend of Kage is considered terrible in retro gaming circles (it's very neatly situated in the middle of the sliding scale I outlined) but I think it applies to older beat-em-ups too. when a game is really overtly simple it essentially rubs the purpose of its design in the player's face ("this is a conceptually simple game that's easy to pick up & hard to master") but when it goes a little further towards "adventure-y" presentation people tend to expect more "content" & "depth" in the modern gaming sense. by that I mean environmental exploration & really overt mechanical exploration - trying out a variety of really distinct moves & seeing how they affect the environment, versus exploring the full potential of a limited set of abilities.
of course there are people who'll even dismiss Pac-Man but it's rarer, especially outside of Ganker where you're not anonymous and there's a "retro appreciator" e-penis to protect. it's also tied to the "give us something new" attitude of gen x western game reviewers in old magazines & whatnot, where overtly simple 1-screen games are treated as untouchable classics (essentially the chess of gaming) but everything else needs to constantly offer sweeping new technology-based "leaps forward", versus polishing existing tried-and-true formulas or mixing & matching elements of said formulas to create something new.
arcade & arcade-like shoot-em-ups generally avoid this by having a really really dedicated following & a steady stream of games but you'll find plenty of "wtf, I beat this in 30 minutes by credit & bomb-spamming and there's no replay value"-type opinions on those games too.
Kage is underrated, Seanbaby poisoned the well early on general internet opinion of certain NES games
Seanbaby was really funny but obviously had generic 90s gaming mag taste (he came from EGM after all). I assume a lot of people took his writing as "this is a cool internet man with cool internet man taste; I need to agree with his opinions to also be a cool internet man" instead of just seeing him as a comedy writer. this never had much of an impact on me; Kage is just too fundamentally cool to dismiss.
he was also the reason it took me a long-ass time to appreciate AVGN & Cinemassacre cuz I basically saw them as "Seanbaby for newbies". I had a sense that his specific brand of cynicism was a "superior" form of online comedy and stuff Youtube kids liked was lower-tier internet culture (and of course AVGN dunked on stuff that didn't really reserve it too). in retrospect though there was more genuine unironic appreciation of NES games there especially on Mike's side
despite all that I still think Seanbaby's writing was really enjoyable in retrospect it's funny that he went back and edited this to "what is this bullshit" or something though
I felt the same way about AVGN and Seanbaby to be honest. I remember finding Seanbaby's site in the middle of the night in the late 90s and laughing my ass off, but was shocked to see Deadly Towers at number 1. Deadly Towers has a lot of flaws, but it's nowhere near the worst NES game and I do think he had a lot to do with coloring the general opinion on the game. His writing is very late 90s/early 00s nerd edge in a way that was very endearing at the time. I still randomly think of the dude who grew his wiener from so much tugging
Zoomers nowadays consider everything that's not a live service and has not had an update released in the last three days dated.
SOR2 Remake and Little Fighter 2 are the best ones
>Little Fighter 2
Leemena Dan is a hack
>listening to some history podcast
>one of the hosts says beat-em-ups and most arcade game were shit made to steal your money
>now he plays modern games and RTS games
>listening to some mystery podcast
>host says Doom aged awfully and now games are better and more meanful
>he's talking about movie games
What the frick? They were there. What happened?
>listening to stupid people prattle on their terrible opinions
Well there's your problem right there, sport.
/vr/ and retro gamers in general have the exact same general take on old beat-em-ups though. there's just a handful of "truly well-aged" games everyone circlejerks over
In my defence, I'm not listening to them to know their opinion on video games.
Beat-'em-up's were never good. The gameplay is really simple, dull, repetitive. The design is nothing interesting. I just feel a sense of strangeness that people are attached to these type of games.
if old 2D beat-em-up design is so dated and there's nothing to learn from it or return to then modern 2D DMC-wannabe yoge kusoge like SoR4 & Shredder's Revenge should be the same thing fundamentally but immensely better. they're not
Lipsticks and pigs. Beat 'em ups are broken in the fundamentals. Bringing in conventions from elsewhere isn't going to fix it.
what's fundamentally broken about them?
he sucks at them, therefore they are broken
This
They hold up well now too, for the variety. Some of the console ones are too generic, repetitive and boring to play, with no reward though
>some novelties should make something immensely better but it didn't curious
this is a moronic premise regardless point you're trying to make.
no dummy my point is that modern western game devs don't even understand the core design philosophy of classic beat-em-ups. they can't build upon something they don't understand
>the core design philosophy of classic beat-em-ups
You mean half an hour of punch-punch-look away-punch-punch-repeat?
>modern 2D DMC-wannabe yoge kusoge like SoR4 & Shredder's Revenge
Miles better than /vr/ holy cows like Final Fight. Take off your nostalgia goggles grampa
see
"muh nostalgia" is a dumb strawman. you can't read people's minds
I have played a dozen or so beat em ups substantially out beaten them and yet I feel like I've never really "got" the genre like done people do. I've had fun with several but the only one I really love is Battletoads vs Double Dragon on SNES.
Don't ask me why but when I even think about that game I get a blast of happiness, it's just fun, and I can't get into stuff like Final Fight at all.
As I say I'm not knowledgeable about the genre, just my experience.
ugh phoneposting.
yoge kusoge brain
I'm half-joking; haven't played Battletoads vs Double Dragon but I do really like Battletoads Arcade. it's much more bullshit than Japanese beat-em-ups-though
You're a zoomer because you had to ask instead of just forming your own opinion and saying to frick with anyone else.
"am i a zoomer" no you're just like gen x western game reviewers. all these gays would absolutely cry at samurai western for only having one button to attack. it's not a zoomer thing you're just a moronic westerner
>Beat em ups are cheap quarter munchers
>Meanwhile in reality they are among the most fair arcade genres out there.
>Multiple lives, health bar health items, desperation moves when you are in a pinch, weapons for extra damage
Easiest way to spot someone who genuinely has no idea what the hell they are talking about.
Beat em ups rule.
I wouldn't call them unfair or cheap quarter munchers, but Final Fight for example is hard as hell. I'd imagine if it were made for consoles first it would've given you more lives and lower the damage taken. Then there's stuff like the fires that are easy to avoid if you know what you're doing, but almost guaranteed to kill you at first.
Doesn't mean I don't love it.
>I feel like you had to be there.
That applies to all games.
Learn about crowd control. Also, if you credit feed it will be very boring.
They're more fun when you're at the bowling alley with your friends, and you're taking a break between games to eat hotdogs and french fries and play arcade cabinets.
You don't have to like the genre but it's easy to understand the modern appeal. Specifically, the 1CC or limited lives challenging playthrough that forces you to utilize the game mechanics to their fullest extent and get good at crowd control. There's also quarter feeding with friends if you don't like challenging yourself.
play streets of rage 2. I'm a normie that can't really tolerate the repetition of gitting gud in limited continue games and I was able to make it to the credits with relatively little pain. definitely helps that it was balanced around console originally and not the arcades like most of them.
If you like SoR2, there is "new era" project 2.0 avaliable(3.0 on the way)
How much of a link is there between the old school 2D beat em ups, and things like Dynasty Warriors?
for some reason i got really into the sms port of renegade as a kid
are there any good modern belt scrollers?
I'm not a zoomer and I don't like them
I like the idea of them, I find them interesting and aesthetically appealing, I want to like the reality of them
I just find most of them miserable to play
They were fun to play with friends in the age before online gaming, but they all kind of felt like the same game with different characters and environments.
You'll love it once you've been lost in the sauce of a 1CC
Betting 50 cents on each continue added a lot to them. All the repetition and waiting for dudes to stand up feels better in the context of being careful about "protecting your stake"
wasn't it 25 cents as the default? at least when the game wasn't brand new? beyond that yeah it's clearly about limiting continues.
1CC might be a bit too daunting for most but just limiting your continues goes a very long way. instead of playing with infinite continues I like to think about how much money I'd be spending in the arcade.
I think they get a bit dull after a while, way too repetitive and often were the most safe licensed video games possible which barely had anything to do with the characters they were based on, so a part of me doesn't see them in a good light... but when you play with someone else, it's damn fun, it's a genre that was made for cooperative play, that's where it shines and becomes classic.
being there has nothing to do with it
you have to understand them, which most people even if they were there did not
This is exactly the kind of bullshit people are talking about. That made an exciting and fast-paced game look plodding and tedious.
if you guys have a point to make here it's hidden under extremely vague game reviewer jargon
Oh sweet baby Christ, what kind of disability do you have if anything in that post was extremely vague video game reviewer jargon
Claiming adjectives as jargon is ignorance-coded illiteracy.
>playing like a clueless moron is exciting
for u
That's fricking sick.
based
they had a giant one of these at a korean owned grocer i'd go to in the 90s
Frick what anyone says. This looks awesome.
I bought this a few days ago. What an amazing game. Perfectly designed difficulty where you get a bit further every time.
example of a good one back then. They packed enough extras to make it more fun
There wasn't a lot else out at the time, so these were still new and fun to play
I had a lot of fun with the simpsons ome the the tmnt one for the snes, but tbf i played them with friends, it would be too boring to play them alone.
Only morons hate them.
>Am I a zoomer if I don't like beat-em-ups? I feel like you had to be there.
maybe. There were lots of them in the early golden days and they nearly all had a street setting of some kind... and in the arcade you were already in a place with higher incident of youth rebellion sentiment, and the arcades tended to be available to even poverty class for entertainment. There was some appeal of playing a game and acting like a badass on the streets where bad guys and gangs roamed. It was part of the environment.
Old Mike here had a double tie-in with pro wrestling, which was still not yet widely known to be a work.
They were casual games, nothing to throw a party about.
2D beat em alls were realistic, had great graphics and awesome music. now they still have the awesome music but not much else.
one that i would recommend to zoomers is die hard arcade, i think it still holds up because it has a lot of moves and is not repetitive, the music is not as good as 2d BTAs though
good sprite art made with good technology is ageless though. what are "graphics" in a technological sense good for if not giving the devs room to get across cool art with less limits? arcade technology in particular allowed for really elaborate characters & backgrounds. old arcade Capcom beat-em-ups still have amazing visuals today cuz the technology was strong enough to allow their artists, which were some of the best in history of games, to really flex with the artwork & animation. not to mention limitations can also breed really charming visuals - look at Mighty Final Fight.
plus there's plenty of 2D ones with more variety in the moveset, frick even Streets of Rage developed more & more moves as it went on & Final Fight 3 gives you extra fighting game-like moves too. you have the Capcom DnD stuff if you want more variety in your basic approach to combat. I also don't really differentiate between 2d & 3d/2.5d that much cuz the basic appeal is pretty similar. Die Hard Arcade/Dynamite Deka had sequels and I get the same sense of fun when I play those I haven't emulated Asian Dynamite yet though
they can be hard as shit though, so what makes them casual? coin-feeding? by this standard even the best-designed shoot-em-ups with more depth than beat-em-ups are "casual" cuz you can credit-spam and just enjoy the presentation. does a game allowing you to play it casually make it inherently casual?
"plodding and tedious" is nonspecific & doesn't say anything beyond "I don't like it". could might as well apply to modern From Software games or Monster Hunter or something if they're not someone's cup of tea.
>I haven't emulated Asian Dynamite yet though
it's pretty shit. made me appreciate die hard arcade even more
>frick even Streets of Rage developed more & more moves as it went on & Final Fight 3 gives you extra fighting game-like moves too.
I would argue these were the exception. final fight 3 was really cool, but that's one game.
You may like Battle Circut then. You can buy moves at the end of stages with the gold you pick up.
>"plodding and tedious" is nonspecific & doesn't say anything beyond "I don't like it"
No. They actually have very specific meanings. Keep up.
"plodding" implies "not fun cuz it's too slow" which doesn't refer to any specific mechanics and could might as well be a result of your own lack of skill than any inherent issue with the game. if you said something descriptive like "the walking speed is too slow" then we could be getting somewhere
"tedious" just means "playing it feels like work" hence it really is just a way of saying "I don't like it". if you, for a different example, don't like strategy games and prefer action games they're gonna feel "tedious" but that doesn't make them bad.
I think the problem is theres good and bad ones and most of them kind of just are bad. Theyre also always way more fun with a friend even the worst ones. I think my main issue with a lot of them is it doesn't feel like my fault when I get hit by the enemies, a lot of shit just happens within a single frame window and you typically dont have a lot of moves or options yourself to mitigate it.
Some I really like are The Simpsons arcade, Violent Storm, Michael Jacksons Moon Walker arcade, Dynamite Cop(Die Hard), Wario World(even though its kind of its own weird thing) and Splatterhouse 1. I felt like these were all well balanced games that were fair and enjoyable solo and also just managed to make the monotony of the genre enjoyable by having fun levels and themes.
>the problem is theres good and bad ones
>most of them kind of just are bad
yep
Even through comparison in just the genre, the handful of good ones are way above the mass of bad ones.
Buying/renting games used to be a much bigger and rarer deal, accompanied by the gamble that was trying a new game. You couldn't just refund and download games on a whim. Being stuck with a mediocre game was often good, because that meant you weren't stuck with a bad game.
For every "how did people think THIS game was good?" there are dozens of games that were so shit that they're not even worth remembering.
simpsons arcade is one game that got horribly "rebalanced ;)" for america to be immensely harder than the japanese version though
I used to think Violent Storm was way more player-friendly than Final Fight but once I got into the latter's mindset I could beat it with around the same number of credits pretty quick. both are fun games
which, again, is an advantage of arcades cuz you could watch a game then give it a quick try for 25-50 cents to see how it feels hands-on vs buying a piece of shit & being stuck with it (though ok, renting also existed)
Better than FPSs, RTSs, sandbox/nig simulators and RPGs
Once you get past the casual novelty they become a pretty dry exercise, not a lot of novelty for the intermediate player to grab onto. in a typical action game what you're expected to learn is bold and flashy, striking enemy patterns and scripted events. In a beatemup you need to get your head around an endless stream of subtle crowd behavior and the most efficient way to cheese it.
I find that really fun these days though! after you play the kind of flashy action games you're speaking of your entire life, the subtlety of beat-em-up crowd control feels like something new & interesting. as I get better at reading, predicting & finally controlling group behavior I start to have "eureka" moments like a shonen manga protagonist. it's like the crowd control version of "I CAN SEE HIS PUNCHES NOW!"
its annoying that you cant do 2 player on final fight snes, thats the only one that has the right feel. Compare Haggars punch in FF1 vs the 3rd one, he looks and acts too gay in it.
see what i mean, not tough at all, just fruity
okay, that actually is pretty gay. looks like an outfit that the girl in streets of rage would wear.
just emulate the arcade one on mame and play that with friends. if you wanna be "legit" there's that collection out too.
didn't think that would be a particularly mean post by Ganker standards but whatever
to elaborate on the second part, maybe I project too hard over others cuz I've had my own mind changed by posts like that in the past
It's not mean but i (and i think others) appreciate a well-thought-out argument on here and you clearly know what you're talking about. If things are ever to improve we need to be better than the bait-spewing wastes of life like the posters you were replying to. That said what are some of your favorites of the genre?
they're all pretty obvious ones like Capcom stuff, Konami stuff, Streets of Rage etc. I think the most interesting ones would be Nekketsu Kouha Kunio-kun arcade & Streets of Rage 3 (probably my favorite in the series) which aren't very well liked.
oops speak of the devil
SoR 3 music is great the same way Mega Man X3 music is great. people tend to have boomer opinions about noisier, less melodic music in old games. and obviously SoR3 is a shit localization; Bare Knuckle 3 is the one to play.
SoR4's devs made a comment like "in the old games you lose health for using super attacks, we fixed that with epic combos :)" which is when I lost interest cuz it's obvious they didn't even play the third game to learn from it
oh I forgot to mention Dynamite Deka 2; I really liked that one. 1 is great but I need to get better at it. I'd mention stuff like Night Slashers in terms of fun with friends & family but I never played them very "seriously".
Violent Storm is probably my favorite Konami one
>SoR 3 music is great the same way Mega Man X3 music is great.
X3 music is great in my opinion, can't say the same about SoR3.
>people tend to have boomer opinions about noisier, less melodic music in old games.
I do appreciate noisier and less melodic music too. This is one of my favorites OST on sega genesis:
>SoR3 is a shit localization; Bare Knuckle 3 is the one to play.
SoR3 plays better tho, BK3 is too easy.
Batman & Robin is still pretty melodic compared to the ballsy gabber stuff in SoR3
?si=uTgPdi3K95llHlbL
I just don't like localized difficulty shifts in general; I prefer the original devs' vision. and I do feel like it hurt the game's reputation since the past 2 games were more accessible.
on the other hand I really like how Yuzo Koshiro did music for these two games that were really well-liked by mainstream American audiences and then just went totally nuts in 3.
SoR3's normal isn't that hard, just feels like the right challenge, plus it has some gameplay tweaks that make it faster and more fun to play like the more forgiving special and better evadion move. BK3's difficulty options are a joke compared to SoR2.
not caring for a genre of gaymen is not a zoomer thing anon
i only frick with beat em ups if females/children/low-skilled players want to do co-op
your girlfriend isnt going to let you kick her ass at neogeo fighting games for more than a few minutes
& if she cant fight she very likely will be an absolute shitter at bullethell
2000's was full of beat em ups (mostly based on like cartoons) 3D and 2D on GBA, I think most zoomers would be ok with beat em ups.