All games are beginning to look and feel the same

Also, we'd see no more military FPS games being released. (Thank god). We'd have more amazing beat em ups like Streets of Rage 2 and Final Fight 3

YosemiteSam400

Ridiculous post. There are many more beat 'em up clones on older consoles than there are military FPS clones today. There's a lot more variety this gen than on the SNES/Genesis.

[QUOTE="YosemiteSam400"]

Also, we'd see no more military FPS games being released. (Thank god). We'd have more amazing beat em ups like Streets of Rage 2 and Final Fight 3

ReddestSkies

Ridiculous post. There are many more beat 'em up clones on older consoles than there are military FPS clones today. There's a lot more variety this gen than on the SNES/Genesis.

And they are also increasingly self-concious about being presented as 'games' (or tools/toys) so we end up with a lot of games that are very serious (this in term influences game mechanics because the developers then aim to strip away game elements that seem goofy/gamey).

An argument can be made that so many games have the same control scheme and feel in controls simply because they are converging on what works. But I think a good argument could alsobe made for going back and revisiting game mechanics from a basic place. Re-think the run-and-walk, re-think 'jump'. The possibilities there are huge. Most games are getting bigger and bigger, but we still have very few games that have captured the essence of moving in small-cramped spaces with intimate body-to-environment navigation (think navigating a jungle-gym and the kind of player-character interactions that could exist there: the exact opposite of what games are currently doing). There are of course challenges with this (camera being a big one). This kind of game is unlikely to be made though because most big releases now are focused on the situation (plot wise and set-piece wise) that the character is in, rather than the minutiae of how the character navigates it,

That isn't necessarily a bad thing but it is very much a trend that the industry has converged on to the exclusion of other ideas that used to carry weight in the industry.

--Just to clarify the kind of industry-wide trend I am talking about here isn't the increasing convergence with film itself (though that is part of it), but a design philosophy that has spread through the industry that focuses on the 'what's' of the game scenario rather than the 'hows' (this is an entirely valid approach in and of itself).

None of the bat-**** insane ideas that SEGA was throwing out in the DC age would be made today. I think part of that is because if any developer attempts to make a 'game'y game they would be called out as 'gimmicky'. People seem to have settled on what it is they want out of games and anything that doesn't follow a linear evolutionary path to meet those expectations is shrugged off.

Time to branch out. Try some indie games, see if they meet your needs.

c_rake

 I quite actually wouldn't mind if games were still being developed for the 16 bit consoles. I also wouldn't mind it if we never progressed in the gaming industry. Sure we wouldn't be able to play masterpieces like Red Dead, but we would've never known what we would have missed out on either. Also, the cost to develop a game wouldn't be as expensive as it is now.

 

Also, we'd see no more military FPS games being released. (Thank god). We'd have more amazing beat em ups like Streets of Rage 2 and Final Fight 3

YosemiteSam400

So basically you are advocating that the medium should stagnate and cease evolving to placate your own myopic tastes even if such a state results in us collectively losing some of the best games ever made.

The problem with your troglodytic postulation is that most people would like to see something new at some point in the evolution of a medium. Were everyone as entrenched in nostalgia as you, no medium would ever advance beyond the most primitive parameters and worse, eventually all progression within that limited construct would cease, turning gaming into a tepid, shallow pool of mediocrity.

What is ironic about your assertion is that, for somebody claiming to loathe sameness in gaming, you are advocating for an era that was mired in redundancy and suffered through an endless torrent of clones. Furthermore, you'd see that era become an infinite paradigm that would forever stall creativity and tether game makers to archaic technology.

My advice is to separate yourself from modern gaming, find a nice cave somewhere (replete with a power source of course,) hook up all your beloved 16-bit systems, and play.

But at the same time, leave those of us who actually embrace evolution alone as most of us don't necessarily want to play the same games for the foreseeable infinity.

P.S. Final Fight 3 sucked. Hard.

I find the many modern games including FPS are become more and more different.

Absolutely not, maybe some feel familiar but no way too derivative of each other. Every experience is different.

 In terms of themes I agree that we have a lot of variety outside of military shooters. But in terms of genre, gameplay mechanics and the variety of feel in mechanics I've found that most modern games are very similar. They are all converging into an action-adventurer sludge where the controls, control layout and even game mechanics (greater emphasis away from varied ways of 'controlling' the characters to simply prompting them: magnetic jumping is one but one of these changes that have rendered all the variety in running/jumping redundant).

And they are also increasingly self-concious about being presented as 'games' (or tools/toys) so we end up with a lot of games that are very serious (this in term influences game mechanics because the developers then aim to strip away game elements that seem goofy/gamey).

An argument can be made that so many games have the same control scheme and feel in controls simply because they are converging on what works. But I think a good argument could alsobe made for going back and revisiting game mechanics from a basic place. Re-think the run-and-walk, re-think 'jump'. The possibilities there are huge. Most games are getting bigger and bigger, but we still have very few games that have captured the essence of moving in small-cramped spaces with intimate body-to-environment navigation (think navigating a jungle-gym and the kind of player-character interactions that could exist there: the exact opposite of what games are currently doing). There are of course challenges with this (camera being a big one). This kind of game is unlikely to be made though because most big releases now are focused on the situation (plot wise and set-piece wise) that the character is in, rather than the minutiae of how the character navigates it,

That isn't necessarily a bad thing but it is very much a trend that the industry has converged on to the exclusion of other ideas that used to carry weight in the industry.

 

--Just to clarify the kind of industry-wide trend I am talking about here isn't the increasing convergence with film itself (though that is part of it), but a design philosophy that has spread through the industry that focuses on the 'what's' of the game scenario rather than the 'hows' (this is an entirely valid approach in and of itself).

None of the bat-**** insane ideas that SEGA was throwing out in the DC age would be made today. I think part of that is because if any developer attempts to make a 'game'y game they would be called out as 'gimmicky'. People seem to have settled on what it is they want out of games and anything that doesn't follow a linear evolutionary path to meet those expectations is shrugged off.

Articuno76

You make some excellent points regarding the way in which game design evolves in key titles and eventually spreads and affects the design of other games. You tend to see that in every generation but regardless I would assert that this generation still affords more variety in mechanics than any other previous era, even in the face of convergence.

Also, I couldn't agree with you more about minutia and changing up the way characters interact and navigate their environments within a gaming construct. One of the reasons I've been such an unabashed fan of Rockstar's output this generation is because of their utilization and mastery of Euphoria imbued their games with a tactile and physical dimension almost entirely absent in other games. Something like Max Payne 3 played so differently than Uncharted because of this physical weight and minutia and I agree that an attention to such details can and will facilitate all manner of new interactions and mechanics if developers are willing to explore them.

[QUOTE="YosemiteSam400"]

 I quite actually wouldn't mind if games were still being developed for the 16 bit consoles. I also wouldn't mind it if we never progressed in the gaming industry. Sure we wouldn't be able to play masterpieces like Red Dead, but we would've never known what we would have missed out on either. Also, the cost to develop a game wouldn't be as expensive as it is now.

 

Also, we'd see no more military FPS games being released. (Thank god). We'd have more amazing beat em ups like Streets of Rage 2 and Final Fight 3

Grammaton-Cleric

So basically you are advocating that the medium should stagnate and cease evolving to placate your own myopic tastes even if such a state results in us collectively losing some of the best games ever made.

The problem with your troglodytic postulation is that most people would like to see something new at some point in the evolution of a medium. Were everyone as entrenched in nostalgia as you, no medium would ever advance beyond the most primitive parameters and worse, eventually all progression within that limited construct would cease, turning gaming into a tepid, shallow pool of mediocrity.

What is ironic about your assertion is that, for somebody claiming to loathe sameness in gaming, you are advocating for an era that was mired in redundancy and suffered through an endless torrent of clones. Furthermore, you'd see that era become an infinite paradigm that would forever stall creativity and tether game makers to archaic technology.

My advice is to separate yourself from modern gaming, find a nice cave somewhere (replete with a power source of course,) hook up all your beloved 16-bit systems, and play.

But at the same time, leave those of us who actually embrace evolution alone as most of us don't necessarily want to play the same games for the foreseeable infinity.

P.S. Final Fight 3 sucked. Hard.

Final Fight 3 sucked. Hard.Grammaton-Cleric

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"] Final Fight 3 sucked. Hard.YosemiteSam400

[QUOTE="YosemiteSam400"]

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"] Final Fight 3 sucked. Hard.JustPlainLucas

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"] Final Fight 3 sucked. Hard.YosemiteSam400

Oh, I'm sure you replay that game despite its predication upon banality. Even for a tedious brawler it manages to find a new level of dullness that entirely obfuscates the fact that it is a sequel to the original and brilliant Final Fight.

Ironically enough, as you replay the same crap again and again, this generation has enjoyed a spattering of brawlers, including but not limited to, Castle Crashers, Scott Pilgrim and the Shank games, all of which are vastly superior to Final Fight 3 and most of the other 16-bit brawlers you so dearly love.

The fantastic thing about evolution is that we can appreciate the old and embrace the new. You on the other hand are stuck in the past; chained to it.

As annoying as many of your posts have been, I actually pity you.

In terms of themes I agree that we have a lot of variety outside of military shooters. But in terms of genre, gameplay mechanics and the variety of feel in mechanics I've found that most modern games are very similar. They are all converging into an action-adventurer sludge where the controls, control layout and even game mechanics (greater emphasis away from varied ways of 'controlling' the characters to simply prompting them: magnetic jumping is one but one of these changes that have rendered all the variety in running/jumping redundant).

And they are also increasingly self-concious about being presented as 'games' (or tools/toys) so we end up with a lot of games that are very serious (this in term influences game mechanics because the developers then aim to strip away game elements that seem goofy/gamey).

An argument can be made that so many games have the same control scheme and feel in controls simply because they are converging on what works. But I think a good argument could alsobe made for going back and revisiting game mechanics from a basic place. Re-think the run-and-walk, re-think 'jump'. The possibilities there are huge. Most games are getting bigger and bigger, but we still have very few games that have captured the essence of moving in small-cramped spaces with intimate body-to-environment navigation (think navigating a jungle-gym and the kind of player-character interactions that could exist there: the exact opposite of what games are currently doing). There are of course challenges with this (camera being a big one). This kind of game is unlikely to be made though because most big releases now are focused on the situation (plot wise and set-piece wise) that the character is in, rather than the minutiae of how the character navigates it,

That isn't necessarily a bad thing but it is very much a trend that the industry has converged on to the exclusion of other ideas that used to carry weight in the industry.

 

--Just to clarify the kind of industry-wide trend I am talking about here isn't the increasing convergence with film itself (though that is part of it), but a design philosophy that has spread through the industry that focuses on the 'what's' of the game scenario rather than the 'hows' (this is an entirely valid approach in and of itself).

None of the bat-**** insane ideas that SEGA was throwing out in the DC age would be made today. I think part of that is because if any developer attempts to make a 'game'y game they would be called out as 'gimmicky'. People seem to have settled on what it is they want out of games and anything that doesn't follow a linear evolutionary path to meet those expectations is shrugged off.

Articuno76

You're right about this. Here's a good example of what you're saying: http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/03/13/call-of-duty-red-orchestra-2-interview/

But I think the industry-wide focus on the "what" instead of the "how" (at least in the RPG, FPS and action adventure genres) is because this generation marked the first one in which hardware allowed developers to make relatively huge, open worlds. Eventually some devs will be tired of just trying to make the biggest game world they possibly can and will focus more on the actual interactions. But for now, everyone wants to make the "Skyrim" of [enter genre here], because that's something that they couldn't do 10 years ago. That's not necessarily a bad thing, and when I want to see new ideas, I look at 2D games (for example, I particularly love the interactions and movement in Mark of the Ninja, and the way it deals with sound and lighting).

It is the details that show the most change. It seem that too many people only look at the broad part. It like saying that a car from the 70s is the same as a new car because both have four wheels.

[QUOTE="YosemiteSam400"]

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"] Final Fight 3 sucked. Hard.Grammaton-Cleric

Oh, I'm sure you replay that game despite its predication upon banality. Even for a tedious brawler it manages to find a new level of dullness that entirely obfuscates the fact that it is a sequel to the original and brilliant Final Fight.

Ironically enough, as you replay the same crap again and again, this generation has enjoyed a spattering of brawlers, including but not limited to, Castle Crashers, Scott Pilgrim and the Shank games, all of which are vastly superior to Final Fight 3 and most of the other 16-bit brawlers you so dearly love.

The fantastic thing about evolution is that we can appreciate the old and embrace the new. You on the other hand are stuck in the past; chained to it.

As annoying as many of your posts have been, I actually pity you.

Lol. I've beaten Mass Effect 3, Red Dead, Skyrim and a plethora of modern games lately. Never said I didn't play modern games, friend.

Lol, those beat em ups you mentioned pretty much suck ass. Streets of Rage and Final Fight in general trounce them. Better yet, Batman Returns on the SNES is better. Oh, and the classic arcade beat em ups such as Caddillacs and Dinosaurs, Punisher, Knights of the Round, King of Dragons etc, all destroy those games that you mentioned. Oh boy, come on gramm, you can do better than that. Brawlers from the 90s obliterate the beat em ups out now. If you disagree, then I question your taste in games. Better yet, any 90s capcom/konami brawler is much better. Since you are in your 30s, I question if you just didn't play games from back then, if so, then I pity you friend.

I'm sorry, but Scott Pilgrim and Castle Crashers..... LOL!

Lol. I've beaten Mass Effect 3, Red Dead, Skyrim and a plethora of modern games lately. Never said I didn't play modern games, friend.

 

Lol, those beat em ups you mentioned pretty much suck ass. Streets of Rage and Final Fight in general trounce them. Better yet, Batman Returns on the SNES is better. Oh, and the classic arcade beat em ups such as Caddillacs and Dinosaurs, Punisher, Knights of the Round, King of Dragons etc, all destroy those games that you mentioned. Oh boy, come on gramm, you can do better than that. Brawlers from the 90s obliterate the beat em ups out now. If you disagree, then I question your taste in games. Better yet, any 90s capcom/konami brawler is much better. Since you are in your 30s, I question if you just didn't play games from back then, if so, then I pity you friend.

 

I'm sorry, but Scott Pilgrim and Castle Crashers..... LOL!

 

YosemiteSam400

Pretty sure he's just trolling, and that replying to him is absolutely pointless.

Pretty sure he's just trolling, and that replying to him is absolutely pointless.

ReddestSkies

[QUOTE="YosemiteSam400"]

Lol. I've beaten Mass Effect 3, Red Dead, Skyrim and a plethora of modern games lately. Never said I didn't play modern games, friend.

 

Lol, those beat em ups you mentioned pretty much suck ass. Streets of Rage and Final Fight in general trounce them. Better yet, Batman Returns on the SNES is better. Oh, and the classic arcade beat em ups such as Caddillacs and Dinosaurs, Punisher, Knights of the Round, King of Dragons etc, all destroy those games that you mentioned. Oh boy, come on gramm, you can do better than that. Brawlers from the 90s obliterate the beat em ups out now. If you disagree, then I question your taste in games. Better yet, any 90s capcom/konami brawler is much better. Since you are in your 30s, I question if you just didn't play games from back then, if so, then I pity you friend.

 

I'm sorry, but Scott Pilgrim and Castle Crashers..... LOL!

 

JustPlainLucas

 

 

Lol. I've beaten Mass Effect 3, Red Dead, Skyrim and a plethora of modern games lately. Never said I didn't play modern games, friend.

 

Lol, those beat em ups you mentioned pretty much suck ass. Streets of Rage and Final Fight in general trounce them. Better yet, Batman Returns on the SNES is better. Oh, and the classic arcade beat em ups such as Caddillacs and Dinosaurs, Punisher, Knights of the Round, King of Dragons etc, all destroy those games that you mentioned. Oh boy, come on gramm, you can do better than that. Brawlers from the 90s obliterate the beat em ups out now. If you disagree, then I question your taste in games. Better yet, any 90s capcom/konami brawler is much better. Since you are in your 30s, I question if you just didn't play games from back then, if so, then I pity you friend.

 

I'm sorry, but Scott Pilgrim and Castle Crashers..... LOL!

 

YosemiteSam400

Do you understand that claiming a game "sucks ass" isn't, by any stretch of the imagination, evidence?

Shank and especially Shank 2 are very reminiscent of games like Gunstar Heroes and enjoy attributes from a plethora of titles, from Ikari Warriors to Metal Slug. Both games offer far more variety in terms of combat than ANY of the brawlers you mention. Shank 2 even offers a robust multiplayer component which is well implemented.

As to Streets of Rage and Final Fight, the original FF is a genuine classic but the game lacks any real depth; it is a product of its time and a wonderful game but the actual mechanics don't hold up particularly well outside of that immediate gratification so prevalent in arcade games from the early and mid 90's. Streets of Rage 2 and 3 certainly hold up a bit better but neither game offers nearly as much depth as Scott Pilgrim or Castle Crashers. That isn't merely subjectivism but objective reality, as both of these games offer a much more complex move list along with an RPG-leveling system.

Those other brawlers you mention were most certainly quality games in their respective days but none of them offer anything more than gorgeous 2D visuals and a very small move list. If anything, you've omitted one of the most profoundly deep and very best brawlers from that era, namely Super Double Dragon, which is arguably the very best of that genre precisely because it offers a depth and complexity sorely missing from so many other fighters of that era.

What is unfortunate is that your loud and braying mannerisms make it difficult to take much of what you write seriously yet, ironically, we share a passion for this specific and underappreciated genre. I actually think this particular type of game is rife for a comeback but I also have stumbled upon several quality examples of the genre from this generation. Normally I would go into greater depth to give you some examples and make some suggestions but you are so nostalgically blinded by the 16-bit era that I sincerely believe you are psychologically unwilling to appreciate contemporary games.   

If you ever opt to expand beyond your devotion to the 16-bit era, I'd love to share with you some of the better examples of the genre out there, limited as these types of games currently are.

P.S. - You questioning my knowledge of this genre or the medium as a whole is adorable. I've not only played EVERY game you mentioned, I played most of them in the arcades. 

Gaming has more variety than ever now.

Noticing a lot of this crap lately in pretty much every game:

- Game starts off with huge boss or "setpiece"

- Tons of segments where you're sliding down something or chase scenes

- QTEs during battles AND cutscenes

- Trying to "humanize" classic characters

- Not letting players make multiple saves

That's just off the top of my head, I'm sure I missed many things so feel free to contribute. Is anyone else quickly losing interest in these so-called "AAA" games? The industry is starting to look like Hollywood. I think it's been well over 5 years since I watched a movie (it was around the time every movie started using the teal and orange color scheme)

istuffedsunny

[QUOTE="istuffedsunny"]

Noticing a lot of this crap lately in pretty much every game:

- Game starts off with huge boss or "setpiece"

- Tons of segments where you're sliding down something or chase scenes

- QTEs during battles AND cutscenes

- Trying to "humanize" classic characters

- Not letting players make multiple saves

That's just off the top of my head, I'm sure I missed many things so feel free to contribute. Is anyone else quickly losing interest in these so-called "AAA" games? The industry is starting to look like Hollywood. I think it's been well over 5 years since I watched a movie (it was around the time every movie started using the teal and orange color scheme)

Heirren

[QUOTE="Heirren"][QUOTE="istuffedsunny"]

Noticing a lot of this crap lately in pretty much every game:

- Game starts off with huge boss or "setpiece"

- Tons of segments where you're sliding down something or chase scenes

- QTEs during battles AND cutscenes

- Trying to "humanize" classic characters

- Not letting players make multiple saves

That's just off the top of my head, I'm sure I missed many things so feel free to contribute. Is anyone else quickly losing interest in these so-called "AAA" games? The industry is starting to look like Hollywood. I think it's been well over 5 years since I watched a movie (it was around the time every movie started using the teal and orange color scheme)

MonoSilver

Nintendo games feel different from what else is out there. They support their own consoles with their own ace software. If one is tiring of what's on ps3360, why not get a Nintendo console as well? First, the wiiu is not that expensive. Regardless of 3rd party support, it WILL get stellar games in its lifespan. These games just feel different from the rest of the pack. In addition to that, the wiiu also plays wii games(if the person doesn't own one), and will likely have the most incredible VCs to date--ranging from NES, master system, genesis, snes, n64, neo geo, tg16, virtual boy?, DS?, Gameboy, gba, and GameCube. When you look at it that way the wiiu is a very attractive console to own regardless of its current situation.

Heirren

Nintendo's games aren't anymore divergent or unique than any number of other games on the market. True, they enjoy their own distinctive flavor and style but there are a number of other developers who enjoy that same distinction. If anything, Nintendo's offerings have become incredibly redundant, even if that redundancy exists within the parameters of their own unique software construct.

As to your generous estimation of what the Wii U will eventually afford the consumer, I'm not necessarily convinced. For example you place great faith in their VC model yet they already fumbled this admittedly brilliant concept with lackluster support on the Wii. I've seen nothing that would suggest the Wii U's VC infrastructure or subsequent support will be anything more than what was already offered last gen, though I do hope it improves and I'm proven wrong since there is a great deal of untapped potential in such an endeavor.

Lastly, every Nintendo system post-SNES has suffered from a dearth of games. Those "ace" Nintendo titles you allude to are few and far between and this time around third party support is looking even worse than usual, meaning the games will flow like sap from a tilted bottle. The Wii U is currently dying at retail and despite sharing technical parity with the PS3 and XB360, developers are ignoring the system almost entirely.

Purchasing a Wii U at the current inflated price is, arguably, a horrible investment unless there are several games currently available to sustain one's interest. Otherwise, it would be wise to wait and let the price fall to a more reasonable level, which will hopefully correlate with incoming software releases.

There are tons of great and original games that, contrary to what some people will tell you, aren't Indie titles. Just need to know where to look.

Well, that's what you would get for playing high-budget games that are made for consoles. Try looking at some of the less-known games, such as those on PC and indie games. They are often better games.Cyberdot

There are quite a few great games on consoles that are lesser known and even more on handhelds. the DS at least.

[QUOTE="Heirren"]

Nintendo games feel different from what else is out there. They support their own consoles with their own ace software. If one is tiring of what's on ps3360, why not get a Nintendo console as well? First, the wiiu is not that expensive. Regardless of 3rd party support, it WILL get stellar games in its lifespan. These games just feel different from the rest of the pack. In addition to that, the wiiu also plays wii games(if the person doesn't own one), and will likely have the most incredible VCs to date--ranging from NES, master system, genesis, snes, n64, neo geo, tg16, virtual boy?, DS?, Gameboy, gba, and GameCube. When you look at it that way the wiiu is a very attractive console to own regardless of its current situation.

Grammaton-Cleric

Nintendo's games aren't anymore divergent or unique than any number of other games on the market. True, they enjoy their own distinctive flavor and style but there are a number of other developers who enjoy that same distinction. If anything, Nintendo's offerings have become incredibly redundant, even if that redundancy exists within the parameters of their own unique software construct.

As to your generous estimation of what the Wii U will eventually afford the consumer, I'm not necessarily convinced. For example you place great faith in their VC model yet they already fumbled this admittedly brilliant concept with lackluster support on the Wii. I've seen nothing that would suggest the Wii U's VC infrastructure or subsequent support will be anything more than what was already offered last gen, though I do hope it improves and I'm proven wrong since there is a great deal of untapped potential in such an endeavor.

Lastly, every Nintendo system post-SNES has suffered from a dearth of games. Those "ace" Nintendo titles you allude to are few and far between and this time around third party support is looking even worse than usual, meaning the games will flow like sap from a tilted bottle. The Wii U is currently dying at retail and despite sharing technical parity with the PS3 and XB360, developers are ignoring the system almost entirely.

Purchasing a Wii U at the current inflated price is, arguably, a horrible investment unless there are several games currently available to sustain one's interest. Otherwise, it would be wise to wait and let the price fall to a more reasonable level, which will hopefully correlate with incoming software releases.

Buying a Wii U right now would just be plain stupid. The Wii U is almost certainly going to have to have a price cut this year, and all of the games that will be worth playing on it are coming later this year as well. SteveTabernacle

Do you understand that claiming a game "sucks ass" isn't, by any stretch of the imagination, evidence?

Shank and especially Shank 2 are very reminiscent of games like Gunstar Heroes and enjoy attributes from a plethora of titles, from Ikari Warriors to Metal Slug. Both games offer far more variety in terms of combat than ANY of the brawlers you mention. Shank 2 even offers a robust multiplayer component which is well implemented.

As to Streets of Rage and Final Fight, the original FF is a genuine classic but the game lacks any real depth; it is a product of its time and a wonderful game but the actual mechanics don't hold up particularly well outside of that immediate gratification so prevalent in arcade games from the early and mid 90's. Streets of Rage 2 and 3 certainly hold up a bit better but neither game offers nearly as much depth as Scott Pilgrim or Castle Crashers. That isn't merely subjectivism but objective reality, as both of these games offer a much more complex move list along with an RPG-leveling system.

Those other brawlers you mention were most certainly quality games in their respective days but none of them offer anything more than gorgeous 2D visuals and a very small move list. If anything, you've omitted one of the most profoundly deep and very best brawlers from that era, namely Super Double Dragon, which is arguably the very best of that genre precisely because it offers a depth and complexity sorely missing from so many other fighters of that era.

What is unfortunate is that your loud and braying mannerisms make it difficult to take much of what you write seriously yet, ironically, we share a passion for this specific and underappreciated genre. I actually think this particular type of game is rife for a comeback but I also have stumbled upon several quality examples of the genre from this generation. Normally I would go into greater depth to give you some examples and make some suggestions but you are so nostalgically blinded by the 16-bit era that I sincerely believe you are psychologically unwilling to appreciate contemporary games.   

If you ever opt to expand beyond your devotion to the 16-bit era, I'd love to share with you some of the better examples of the genre out there, limited as these types of games currently are.

P.S. - You questioning my knowledge of this genre or the medium as a whole is adorable. I've not only played EVERY game you mentioned, I played most of them in the arcades. 

 

Grammaton-Cleric

The point of my suggestion was in contrast to the original topic post. If one is tired of that current trend, which the op described, Nintendo consoles offer different experiences.Heirren

Except it doesn't.

Currently, the Wii U is a more expensive version of the PS3/XB360 but without the excellent back catalogue or the torrent of quality third party games currently being enjoyed by Sony and MS's consoles.

And the small divergences it does offer hardly offset the inordinately high price and lack of compelling software.

You really make me want to play Super Double Dragon again. I could kick a dude's head in while holding on to his arm all damn day.JustPlainLucas

That game was not only the apex of the franchise but remains one of the best brawlers ever made. It plays as well as you remember. 

[QUOTE="SteveTabernacle"]Buying a Wii U right now would just be plain stupid. The Wii U is almost certainly going to have to have a price cut this year, and all of the games that will be worth playing on it are coming later this year as well. Heirren

So what are you saying? That consumers need to subsidize the system first in hopes of getting quality software later?

Sorry, but if Nintendo wanted my money they should have designed a system with better hardware or, at the very least, launched it with something more compelling than the tired NSMB franchise.

For most of us, buying a Wii U at this moment would be a colossal waste of money.

[QUOTE="Heirren"][QUOTE="SteveTabernacle"]Buying a Wii U right now would just be plain stupid. The Wii U is almost certainly going to have to have a price cut this year, and all of the games that will be worth playing on it are coming later this year as well. Grammaton-Cleric

So what are you saying? That consumers need to subsidize the system first in hopes of getting quality software later?

Sorry, but if Nintendo wanted my money they should have designed a system with better hardware or, at the very least, launched it with something more compelling than the tired NSMB franchise.

For most of us, buying a Wii U at this moment would be a colossal waste of money.

As to Streets of Rage and Final Fight, the original FF is a genuine classic but the game lacks any real depth; it is a product of its time and a wonderful game but the actual mechanics don't hold up particularly well outside of that immediate gratification so prevalent in arcade games from the early and mid 90's. Streets of Rage 2 and 3 certainly hold up a bit better but neither game offers nearly as much depth as Scott Pilgrim or Castle Crashers. That isn't merely subjectivism but objective reality, as both of these games offer a much more complex move list along with an RPG-leveling system.

Grammaton-Cleric

There's more to a good 2D beat' em up game than just its combat mechanics. Sound design, character designs, the artstyle, how well its paced, the environments, etc. Hell, that's why most people say that SoR 2 is the best in the series, because even though SoR 3 has a better combat system, it's worse at everything els. 

To be honest, Castle Crashers didn't really do anything for me. I was really excited wen it was finally released for the PC, though wen i gave it a swing, everything was so damn uninteresting that i just put the controller down and never gave a second look at it. 

Neither did i really enjoy the, often praised, Guardian Heroes, which i thought was a convoluted mess on the screen. It was also pretty clunky compared to SoR 2&3.

Though, hey, now i'm curious as hell about Super Double Dragon. It looked like a pretty bad game to me, but i'll give it a go now. 

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

As to Streets of Rage and Final Fight, the original FF is a genuine classic but the game lacks any real depth; it is a product of its time and a wonderful game but the actual mechanics don't hold up particularly well outside of that immediate gratification so prevalent in arcade games from the early and mid 90's. Streets of Rage 2 and 3 certainly hold up a bit better but neither game offers nearly as much depth as Scott Pilgrim or Castle Crashers. That isn't merely subjectivism but objective reality, as both of these games offer a much more complex move list along with an RPG-leveling system.

Lucianu

There's more to a good 2D beat' em up game than just its combat mechanics. Sound design, character designs, the artstyle, how well its paced, the environments, etc. Hell, that's why most people say that SoR 2 is the best in the series, because even though SoR 3 has a better combat system, it's worse at everything els. 

To be honest, Castle Crashers didn't really do anything for me. I was really excited wen it was finally released for the PC, though wen i gave it a swing, everything was so damn uninteresting that i just put the controller down and never gave a second look at it. 

Neither did i really enjoy the, often praised, Guardian Heroes, which i thought was a convoluted mess on the screen. It was also pretty clunky compared to SoR 2&3.

Though, hey, now i'm curious as hell about Super Double Dragon. It looked like a pretty bad game to me, but i'll give it a go now. 

Those components you mention, while important, are largely superficial and should rank secondary to the quality and complexity of a brawler's combat system.

Also, I think one could make the argument that SoR 2 enjoyed relative parity with SoR 3 in terms of combat but arguably enjoyed a better roster of characters.

I prefer So2 for that reason.

Castle Crashers was merely an academic example; it's not one of my favorites either. Scott Pilgrim on the other hand is fantastic and manages to feel both retro and contemporary simultaneously. The most recent Double Dragon Remake is also quite good and I would subsequently argue that games like Batman: Arkham City and Captain America extend nicely into the genre as well.

Like you, I'm still not quite "getting" Guardian Heroes; I nabbed it day one having never played it on the Saturn and thus far it hasn't clicked with me.  

Regardless, I'm glad to see there are other enthusiasts of this oft-ignored genre. I definitely recommend Super Double Dragon and I would also suggest giving the Splatterhouse reboot a chance if you are looking for newer brawlers. (It also contains the original three Splatterhouse games)  

Games are definitely looking the same these days.

In the last generation when Japanese development was still the main force in console development they would make a new engine for pretty much every game. As a result each games' approximation of reality would look different to the next. You could actually pick out a game from the bunch simply by the feel of the way the game looked. Nowadays development on consoles is mostly dominated by western developers who firstly pursue reality more deeply than their Japanese counterparts and also reuse the same engines over and over.

Whereas it is true that an engine alone doesn't determine the way a game looks (you could just as well make a cell-shaded game on UE3) the way it plays out in reality is that most games have extremely similar looking lighting and shading solutions (if not identical), their renditions of different kinds of surfaces is generally uniform as well.

Games are definitely looking the same these days. In the last generation when Japanese development was still the main force in console development they would make a new engine for pretty much every game. As a result each games' approximation of reality would look different to the next. You could actually pick out a game from the bunch simply by the feel of the way the game looked. Nowadays development on consoles is mostly dominated by western developers who firstly pursue reality more deeply than their Japanese counterparts and also reuse the same engines over and over. Whereas it is true that an engine alone doesn't determine the way a game looks (you could just as well make a cell-shaded game on UE3) the way it plays out in reality is that most games have extremely similar looking lighting and shading solutions (if not identical), their renditions of different kinds of surfaces is generally uniform as well. Articuno76

I disagree. A lot of butt bouncers (many of them Japanese) in the 8 and 16 bit era had very similar aesthetics despite the fact they were all using different engines.

Games who are trying to eat a popular game's lunch (be it CoD, Mario, Gears or Sonic) are likely to pattern their visuals after that game.

[QUOTE="SteveTabernacle"]Buying a Wii U right now would just be plain stupid. The Wii U is almost certainly going to have to have a price cut this year, and all of the games that will be worth playing on it are coming later this year as well. Heirren

At least the PS Vita doesn't get inferior ports, unlike the Wii U. 

At least the PS Vita doesn't get inferior ports, unlike the Wii U. 

MarkAndExecute