Are 2D Fighters Going Downhill?

[Des-ROW]

Originally posted by it290@Mon, 2004-12-06 @ 11:03 AM

And I would have to say that it does offer something interesting aesthetically - the art style is very unique, and it's not often that a 2d game comes out with hi-res sprites.

The art style is "unique" but still pretty lacking of detail, enemy variety, and overall originality - certain sprites and animations are repeated endlessly.

Regarding it being hi-res, I would not expect less from a game that actually derived from a Flash online PC game.

For "indie" work, I prefer Watanabe Production's Type-MOON games.

 

[Cloud121]

Anyway, back to the original topic.

Sadly, it seems as though 2D Fighters are getting fewer and fewer.

Even though VF is my passion, I still love KoF.

 

[lordofduct]

I just wanna say they have come a long way since Mortal Kombat! (I don't have much experience with em' prior to the days of MK and Eternal Champions...) Personally though, I still stick to Eternal Champions on Sega CD... screw these new ones, except MvC2, i just love that game!

 

[reX dart: eskimo spy]

Can anyone else comment on Alien Hominid? I'm looking at it and considering a purchase. Looks rather Zim-like.

 

[lordofduct]

The guys over at NewGrounds who did it are really funny guys... do some great animation to. They drew the game all by hand (well by hand on tablets and the sort.) I've only played the original flash version of the game, and that kicks butt. I probably will be getting it for my GC.

 

[Jedi Master Thrash]

Originally posted by CrazyGoon@Sun, 2004-12-05 @ 02:21 AM

I think we've got more than enough innovations to deal with as it is :devil What is it with people and their obsession with "innovation"? Seriously - generally speaking; you can't consider yourself to be much of a gamer if you won't buy or play a game which isn't innovative.

Remember - you don't have to buy every single game in the world, so why complain when a game isn't up to your 'standards of innovation'?

[post=125220]Quoted post[/post]​

I don't think you quite got my point.

I don't consider innovation a requirement for liking a game. Personally, I buy games for one of four reasons:

1. Fun

2. Novelty (has some unique feature, originality, or best or only of a genre)

3. Collection (for instance, collect all Star Wars games)

4. Multiplayer (supports simultaneous multiplayer, or something I know a friend will play with me).

However, "gaming" as a passion and hobby only excited me when there were frequent innovations, original titles, new hardware, interesting news.

Back in the early to mid 90's when I had a subscription to Game Informer, it was like that. I started when NES games still took front page, and I quit when the last issue with Sega Genesis/CD/32x coverage was over. Back then, getting a pseudo 3-D trick or effect on a 2-D gaming system was exciting. Having finishing moves in a fighting game was exciting. New consoles and console-add-ons when interestinc VPU configurations being speculated on and announced by nintendo, atari, panasonic, sega, phillips, etc.

Nowadays, you pick up a video gaming magazine or go to one of the bought-out websites, and you just see coverage of:

1. Football 2004. Same as Football 2003 except new graphical animation that lets you watch the players scratch their ass while they wwonder around the field in between-play cutscenes.

2. Hockey 04. Same as Hocky 03 except with latest player rosters.

3. Butt-Kicker 7. Same as Butt-Kicker 6 except with enhanced graphics engine providing one more move and one more background stage interactive effect.

4. Car Stealer IX, same as Car Stealer IIX but now we can say "shit" up to 99 times without getting sued by the FCC.

5. Rice Racer 3. Same as Rice Racer 2 except with new songs by the worst rap-metal band you have ever heard.

6. New PlayYourself 6 console. same as the PlayYourself 5 console except now it has a Pentium 10GHZ with an nvidia 256 while the PlayYourself 5 only had a Pentium 9GHZ with an nvidia 250.

7. Time Waster XII. Now contains 200 more hours of boring dialogue with the same characters from Time Waster XI, and larger stage areas to wonder around aimlessly for hours searching for scrolls, keys, and gems. New camera engine always points in the exact opposite direction you want to look.

Pardon me if I don't get excited.

I still find my old gems still more fun than any new title. They were innovative in their day, though most non-retro-gamers think they're junk now. I don't think the fact that they were innovated has that much to do with me liking them; they just have that fresh "magic" that is lost in today's games.

JMT.

 

[racketboy]

bravo!

I enjoyed your post, JMT

Especially, "Same as Football 2003 except new graphical animation that lets you watch the players scratch their ass while they wwonder around the field in between-play cutscenes."

 

[Des-ROW]

"Retro" gamers are so boring and warped against any new games/systems, it is seriously very very sad.

I do not understand why they hold so much hatred and frustration against the current videogame world - you can go on playing Blood Bros if you feel like it.

 

[Cloud121]

I used to always consider myself a retro gamer, due to my preference of the MegaDrive.

However, I'd then get to thinking about all my favorite game franchises that hit big during the later generations. Virtua Fighter and Resident Evil especially. "I'm not that much of a retro gamer am I?"

Heh.... If I were, would I be salivating over every little tidbit of Biohazard 4 information I can find?

 

[Des-ROW]

Originally posted by RolfWrenWalsh@Tue, 2004-12-07 @ 01:51 PM

I used to always consider myself a retro gamer, due to my preference of the MegaDrive.

Because of the MegaDrive? That is a retro-wannabe. The MegaDrive is not really that old.

 

[MasterAkumaMatata]

Originally posted by Des-ROW@Mon, 2004-12-06 @ 11:55 PM

The MegaDrive is not really that old.

[post=125356]Quoted post[/post]​

Yeah huhhh!

 

[CrazyGoon]

Hmm, I think I knew what you were saying with your first post, JMT You did provide a stronger point though.

 

[ExCyber]

New PlayYourself 6 console. same as the PlayYourself 5 console except now it has a Pentium 10GHZ with an nvidia 256 while the PlayYourself 5 only had a Pentium 9GHZ with an nvidia 250.

Maybe it's just my growing indifference to shiny new stuff, but I think this could kill the next generation of consoles. I know the 5-year cycle is traditional, but I just don't see the industry making a generational leap again this soon. Even if the hardware is more powerful, it's reached a point of diminishing returns in terms of the advances it brings to the games. If I look at the history of consoles, it looks vaguely like:

pre-NES/SMS (with the notable exception of Colecovision, which is kind of a proto-SMS in many ways) - RAM and clock speed limits severely limit game complexity; strong graphics and sound are a pipe dream.

NES/SMS - Brings home previous-generation arcade-level graphics and sound complexity, but with limited color palette, sound, and sprite count (systems of this generation could only handle 4 sprites on a scanline mg

SNES/Genesis/PC Engine - larger ROM space, better palette hardware, more sprites, quality synthesized music/sound. Gets close enough to "arcade-perfect" to fool many people.

Saturn/PSX/N64 - Introduction of 3D hardware. Previously infeasible gameplay concepts and perspectives come into play, but graphics are generally ugly - low resolution, warped textures, low poly counts, and poor animation and physics drive the experience away from the ideal.

PS2/Xbox/Gamecube - Like the SNES/Genesis/PC-Engine generation, this doesn't bring anything new but removes the more annoying limitations of the previous generation - burlier CPUs enable better physics and animation, bigger discs allow dialogue to be fully voiced, better graphics chips allow smooth models.

PS3/Xbox Next/Revolution - Now what? More cycles? Bigger RAM? More polys? For what? What can developers really accomplish with another spec bump, even if it is fairly sizable? Maybe my imagination sucks, but the only things that really come to mind as compelling possibilities are consistent physics engines (i.e. everything in the game pretty much follows one set of physics rules with some minor exceptions, instead of every entity basically having its own specialized physics code - some games seem to have this on the current generation but it's pretty rough in the few cases I've seen) and persistent deformable worlds, and those don't necessarily fit a wide variety of games (granted, they'd be fantastic for the GTAs and Halos of the world). I can't get over the feeling that this isn't enough to support a generational leap in the market...

 

[Cloud121]

Because of the MegaDrive? That is a retro-wannabe. The MegaDrive is not really that old.

Haha.

Yeah, I know, that's why I stopped thinking like that.

 

[lordofduct]

retro - adj. Involving, relating to, or reminiscent of things past; retrospective. a fashion reminiscent of the past.

The genny is no longer a modern fashion. It is not supported by it's manufacturers, it is not sold at your local stores except maybe used at a pawn shop. It is from the past. Technically it is a retro system. It only loses it due to different cultural cliques deciding its not "old enough"... what cultural clique you are from is based on opinion. So it being retro or not is opinion! Also a retro gamer does not have to dislike modern games. Especially not because they aren't retro.

 

[it290]

"Retro" gamers are so boring and warped against any new games/systems, it is seriously very very sad.

I think you have a point in that 90% of anything is crap. That was true back in the NES days, and it's true now. That said, I do think that there are far more bad games being hyped these days than ever before. And the advent of a more 'cinematic' experience has only contributed to this problem, as developers don't have to concentrate on gameplay as much any more.

I think a lot of 'retro' gamers, as you call them (although most people I know who play oldschool games play new ones as well) just bitch a lot because their favorite genres are dying out. This is an acceptable complaint. How would you feel if Square said they weren't going to make any RPGs any more?

Another aspect to consider is the now-massive size of the game industry. Many feel this has been detrimental to innovation, and I am inclined to agree. Although innovative games do come out from time to time, they are mostly either small PC releases, or imports that get little exposure and are difficult to acquire for most. OTOH, the games that get the most exposure can be likened to Hollywood blockbusters. Some of them are good, yes, but most aren't, and I think many gamers resent the fact that the games industry has been turned into another Hollywood. There was a time when the people who created video games were revolutionaries; maybe that time will come again, but the prospects don't look that bright right now.

edit - oh, and with respect to ExCyber's comment - I think the next big leap forward is VR. I've been ready for it since '92, damn it! When is this stuff going to be mass produced? I swear if I don't see some consumer products in the next couple of years, I'm going to build my own damn VR rig.

 

[CrazyGoon]

Originally posted by ExCyber@Tue, 2004-12-07 @ 12:08 AM

PS3/Xbox Next/Revolution - Now what? More cycles? Bigger RAM? More polys? For what?

[post=125360]Quoted post[/post]​

Like you said - any improvement in the specs department won't improve what ends up showing up on the screen. The only "improvements" I envision, are new 'features' of graphic cards (like Z-buffer, Anti-aliasing, Gouraud shading, etc) which offer slight improvements in graphics.

 

[Des-ROW]

Every generation had its endless counts of sports games and weak hollywood franchises, I seriously do not know why people like to whine to much about this.

When I played Famicom I had great games like Snow Bros, Kyatto Ninden Teyande or Super Mario Bros 3, but there were also horrible titles like Home Alone, Random Footbal Game X, Robocop and many others.

Each year we get dozens of new sports games and horrible movie-based games, but we also get some wonderful games from Konami, Capcom, SNK, Namco and others. It is impossible to expect to get all great unique games, that NEVER happened, NEVER - not even in the "Retro" era.

 

[Des-ROW]

Originally posted by lordofduct@Tue, 2004-12-07 @ 02:15 PM

retro - adj. Involving, relating to, or reminiscent of things past; retrospective. a fashion reminiscent of the past.

The genny is no longer a modern fashion. It is not supported by it's manufacturers, it is not sold at your local stores except maybe used at a pawn shop. It is from the past. Technically it is a retro system. It only loses it due to different cultural cliques deciding its not "old enough"... what cultural clique you are from is based on opinion. So it being retro or not is opinion! Also a retro gamer does not have to dislike modern games. Especially not because they aren't retro.

Let me guess - now the Dreamcast is Retro, right? Hahaha~

"Retro" = "Cool"

The MVS hardware is considered "Retro", and Samurai Spirits Zero SPECIAL, which was the last game ever released on that platform, was released this year.

 

[ExCyber]

Originally posted by Des-ROW+Tue, 2004-12-07 @ 12:51 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Des-ROW @ Tue, 2004-12-07 @ 12:51 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>Let me guess - now the Dreamcast is Retro, right? Hahaha~

"Retro" = "Cool"

The MVS hardware is considered "Retro", and Samurai Spirits Zero SPECIAL, which was the last game ever released on that platform, was released this year.

[post=125366]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b]

Yeah, that's what he said:

<!--QuoteBegin-lordofduct@Tue, 2004-12-07 @ 12:15 AM

It only loses it due to different cultural cliques deciding its not "old enough"... what cultural clique you are from is based on opinion. So it being retro or not is opinion!

[post=125362]Quoted post[/post]​

[/quote]