|
Post by Sarge on May 21, 2020 21:38:37 GMT -5
This is once again appropriate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2020 22:28:30 GMT -5
Can any of you three sell me on Super Double Dragon? What does it do right/wrong compared to Final Fight 2, Streets of Rage 2, Turtle in Time (just to name 3 that I enjoy playing)?
|
|
|
Post by Ex on May 21, 2020 22:45:12 GMT -5
Can any of you three sell me on Super Double Dragon? What does it do right/wrong compared to Final Fight 2, Streets of Rage 2, Turtle in Time (just to name 3 that I enjoy playing)? Dude, does FF2, SoR2, or TiT offer this level of realism?: I think not!
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on May 21, 2020 23:48:59 GMT -5
So it really just comes down to feel. What do you want in a brawler? While they don't all fit into this mold, I feel there are "Double Dragon"-style fighters and "Final Fight"-style fighters. The thing I like about Super Double Dragon is that it has this really chunky feel. The moveset feels quite diverse compared to those inspired by Final Fight, and while it moves at a slower pace, that doesn't mean it doesn't have challenge.
It's not perfect, though - it's clear that, even in the more-finished Japanese game that it needed slightly more time in the oven. I think the elevator sequence, for one, was supposed to be more in-depth. There are other spots where it feels like it wasn't completely finished, either, but it's still a lot of fun. To me, anyway! I really hate to go to "feel" as my explanation, but I actually think it's one of the most important things in a brawler since on the surface, they all try to do the same thing.
Perhaps I should give Final Fight 2 another go, but my hangup with it and Final Fight is that it removes a lot of the depth of Double Dragon, but games of its ilk compensate with speed and spectacle. (Although honestly, Double Dragon was quite the spectacle in arcades, too.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2020 5:14:54 GMT -5
So it really just comes down to feel. What do you want in a brawler? While they don't all fit into this mold, I feel there are "Double Dragon"-style fighters and "Final Fight"-style fighters. The thing I like about Super Double Dragon is that it has this really chunky feel. The moveset feels quite diverse compared to those inspired by Final Fight, and while it moves at a slower pace, that doesn't mean it doesn't have challenge. It's not perfect, though - it's clear that, even in the more-finished Japanese game that it needed slightly more time in the oven. I think the elevator sequence, for one, was supposed to be more in-depth. There are other spots where it feels like it wasn't completely finished, either, but it's still a lot of fun. To me, anyway! I really hate to go to "feel" as my explanation, but I actually think it's one of the most important things in a brawler since on the surface, they all try to do the same thing. Perhaps I should give Final Fight 2 another go, but my hangup with it and Final Fight is that it removes a lot of the depth of Double Dragon, but games of its ilk compensate with speed and spectacle. (Although honestly, Double Dragon was quite the spectacle in arcades, too.)
I have nothing against that slower pace when warranted. I remember liking the NES games as a kid, but I haven't really got into them much since. I haven't even played SoR2 since SoRR came out, though now it's been many years since playing the latter, so I've probably forgotten it enough to be able to go back to SoR2.
I wasn't really drawn to beat-em-ups after childhood except with friends in an arcade (I still love playing X-Men and Simpsons Arcade, and just a few years ago a few buddies and I beat Golden Axe II in the local Barcade). Now the beat-em-ups I have are basically the 3 I mentioned, River City Ransom, and some Marvel stuff - nostalgia, basically!
But because that draw isn't there, I'm iffy to plop down for SDD and try to get into a half-baked game, unless there's some compelling reason to do so.
Not to sound too negative on it, just riffing on what you said and providing some background to my thoughts. I never played SDD before, so more thoughts are definitely welcome!
|
|
|
Post by toei on May 22, 2020 8:45:28 GMT -5
Sarge explained it well. There's the Technos school of beat-'em-ups, and the Final Fight school, and Technos' is all about the chunky feel and the more varied moveset. In general, the individual enemies are a little stronger / more threatening, too, and it just feels a bit more like you're really fighting and you have to pay attention. You can't just walk up to enemy groups and hit them repeatedly, you've got to have a bit more method. I never feel like the levels are dragging, and this is a huge problem with weaker beat-'em-ups (ie the awful, boring Final Fight 2). Sarge Legend is the most sluggish beat-'em-up on a 16-bit console, by far, and possibly the most sluggish ever made. It's just awful. It was the first game developed by two French guys who were fans of the genre, so while they obviously lacked experience, my theory is that they might not have realized or minded how slow the game was because they were used to slowed-down PAL ports. They also made Iron Commando, which I think only came out in Japan, which is faster though still pretty dull due to some boring and overly repetitive level design. Then they remade Legend in 3D for the PSX (PAL-only, I think) - still not good - and they made that Dreamcast game, Soul Fighter. It's got issues with cameras and controls, but the fighting still feels pretty good. The biggest problem is that it wants to be an arcade-style beat-'em-up, with very limited lives, and yet it's several hours long. Really dumb design choice.
|
|
|
Post by Ex on May 22, 2020 11:43:29 GMT -5
I never played SDD before, so more thoughts are definitely welcome! I think that Sarge and toei offered some nice points. For me, it mostly boils down to the large moveset that SDD offers. There are a lot of specialized moves I've not seen in other beat 'em ups. But I'd rather not ruin that for you, and instead let you discover those moves for yourself. Outside the great combat, I enjoy the environment aesthetics and the (USA version's) OST. Also the co-op experience is pretty damned great. One reason many people do not like SDD, is because the game's speed is slower than most beat 'em ups. There are various theories as to why. The most often cited, is that the programmers didn't have time to optimize the code to account for having multiple enemies onscreen, while maintaining 60FPS. So the programmers slowed the game down to a consistent playspeed that would remain universal despite the amount of enemies onscreen. No idea if that theory is true.
The end result however, the slower speed I mean, is something I see as a positive. It allows the player to have more time to plan their assault tactics on enemies. So when you combine the slower speed's tactical benefit, with the diverse unique moveset, you get a beat 'em up that's more strategic than most. And I always appreciate strategic complexity in a video game.
|
|
|
Post by Xeogred on May 22, 2020 18:51:41 GMT -5
I just played a lot of Super Double Dragon after the previous discussions.
Initial reaction was, this is terrible! Almost wanted to boot up another SNES game to make sure my emulation was okay...
But then I grabbed a dudes punch and next thing I know, I get a game over deep into level 6 against another one of those big Clown guys who does spinning rolls in the air. Overall it amusingly reminded me of my initial thoughts when I played God Hand too. That game felt nasty out of the gate, the camera was wack, etc, but then it all clicked and was glorious.
So yeah SDD seems pretty good to me. Way better than the exclusive SNES Battletoads. The sword guys were trouble usually, since I don't think you can parry them? I liked how you could punch thrown objects at you. You don't want to get hit by those thrown knives because they do a LOT of damage! The kicks seemed good on the bigger guys, but there were some martial arts dudes that can grab and flip you from a kick haha.
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on May 22, 2020 19:11:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Ex on May 22, 2020 20:07:14 GMT -5
Overall it amusingly reminded me of my initial thoughts when I played God Hand too. That game felt nasty out of the gate, the camera was wack, etc, but then it all clicked and was glorious. Yeah God Hand's first impression isn't necessarily strong, but its long game is glorious, I agree. That opinion tends to be the consensus of everyone who manages to beat the game. (Still makes me sad Sarge didn't bother finishing it.) Get yerself one o' dem pokey sticks:
|
|