|
Post by toei on Jun 7, 2019 13:09:51 GMT -5
dunpeal2064 Usually with arcade games I set credits at 2 per stage in total. Pretty much every arcade game ever has 5 stages or more, so I start with 10, then if I need more and there are more stages I can add 2 for that stage. You can set it up to less if that seems too generous, but I find it's a good amount to start with since difficulty can vary pretty wildly, and there are generally more enemies than with console ports, where you usually get 3 to 5 extra credits to start with. If you think about it, it kind of makes sense that beat-'em-ups wouldn't be designed towards 1ccs the way shmups are. In a real life fight, you're definitely going to take a bunch of hits. Some of the greatest champions have remained undefeated throughout their careers, but literally none of them have never gotten hit. In a gunfight, things are a little bit different.
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Jun 7, 2019 13:15:06 GMT -5
I like 'em a lot, although the bits that will give the most trouble will likely be the platforming. I think Double Dragon II is the best of the lot, followed by the first game, then the third. I still enjoy DD3, though. The first game tends to be extremely tough as well: tricky jumps that take time to figure out, and enemy sequences that can absolutely destroy you, not to mention the literal brick wall at the start of mission 4. (Bricks extend out of the wall to hurt you.)
Not that DD2 doesn't have its own insanely tricky platforming bits, like the stage 6 temple. That last platforming sequence takes really good timing, and you need to make sure to scroll the screen over enough so that you don't get screwed by not having a platform show up in mid-jump.
I do think arcade beat-'em-ups tend to be oriented more toward credit-feeding, at least the first time though. I'm okay with that.
|
|
|
Post by Ex on Jun 7, 2019 13:17:23 GMT -5
Admittedly I've not spent much time with the NES Double Dragon games, they sound like fun though, might have to give em a try! Double Dragon 1 & 2 on the NES are fantastic. DD3 on NES is... unwelcoming.
-
Unpopular opinion digressive tangent:
I've never taken the time to memorize any arcade game and beat it in 1CC. That's because I treat arcade games as interactive content tourism. I know that is a terribly unpopular opinion in the eyes of the "hardcore". But let me explain that 1CC'ing an arcade game doesn't impress me at all. Beating a game by sheer muscle memory attrition is something a chimp could do. Tons of old action games rely on that rudimentary crux. Which means that if you simply burn enough hours of your life away internalizing every moment of the experience, you can always win in a purely robotic fashion. You will always know what button to push and exactly when as a matter of historical recollection. In that regard, my little 5' 6" ass could step into the ring with a champion heavyweight boxer, and still beat him down bloody - if I knew specifically what moves he was going to use and exactly when. To me that's exactly what 1CC'ing a linear pattern based action arcade game equates to. Victory by sheer rote redundant repetition, I'm not impressed. Machine learning bots can do the same thing in far less time.
SO my ideal arcade-styled shmup is one that is completely randomly generated. You would never know what the shmup will throw at you, nor when. Every time you play the shooter it'd be a different experience. At one time I personally was developing a randomly generated overhead shmup myself called 1CC Hero. A procedurally generated shmup where the player had to beat the whole thing on one life. I got as far as writing the algorithmic engine for it, and playing a proof of concept with placeholder graphics. It was fun. Unfortunately I ran out of steam and didn't finish the project. That was many years ago though, I don't think I even have a copy of the project anymore. By now I'm sure other people have made similar games, considering a hundred new indie PC games are released every week nowadays.
|
|
|
Post by toei on Jun 7, 2019 13:26:24 GMT -5
Good level design is better than random-generation, every time. A purely randomly-generated shmup would be a boring, formless mess, and would potentially create unwinnable situations. At the very least, you'd have to create enemy waves if you don't want it to just generate random enemies at random points of the screen. I don't think the roguelike fan mentality is compatible with the shmup fan's; why try your best to improve if there might not be an actual way to win during any given session?
Also, I know it was just an example, but I don't think any of us could actually beat a heavyweight champion, even with complete knowledge of all their moves. Games are made to be beaten, so there's always a solution. A real-life fighter might throw a combination, say, that is too fast and too varied for someone who doesn't have that level of training to dodge, even knowing fully what's coming, and a single punch to the head from a heavyweight would give any regular person a concussion.
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Jun 7, 2019 13:35:58 GMT -5
Not weighing in on the 1CC side of things, but what toei is saying about games being designed to be beaten is also the reason many games have poor AI. It's not a bug, it's a feature. Really impressive AI, in most aspects, would likely undermine enjoyment of quite a few games and genres.
|
|
|
Post by Ex on Jun 7, 2019 13:43:10 GMT -5
Good level design is better than random-generation, every time. In the sense of replayability and unexpected challenge, I don't agree. I'm not saying that randomly generated levels are a perfect fit for every game genre. But it can work with shmups. It's not like you can't balance the algorithm that generates the content. People beat roguelikes every day. Really impressive AI, in most aspects, would likely undermine enjoyment of quite a few games and genres. Conversely really impressive AI bolsters certain genres' enjoyment as well. FPS, real time strategy, competitive racing, fighting, and sports games for example, are all made more enjoyable by competent emergent AI.
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Jun 7, 2019 13:50:25 GMT -5
Yeah, there are definitely genres where it helps as well. Especially sports. Back in the day, they would often compensate by super-boosting the CPU unfairly. Tecmo Super Bowl would jack up CPU stats, especially in the Super Bowl, to the point where if they got past your defenders, you'd never catch them. Even if you did catch them, you couldn't bring them down quickly. R.C. Pro-Am would kick in a ridiculous speed boost for a racer if you built up too large a lead; you'd hear the sound effect for it, which would make you go "oh, crap". If he got past you (either you didn't bomb him or hit him with a missile as he passed), you had no chance to catch him, period.
|
|
|
Post by toei on Jun 7, 2019 13:53:21 GMT -5
Ex Every roguelike I've ever played ends up with generic and boring levels. Replayability is moot because the game is never that fun to play in the first place. A good level designer will carefully create unique levels with proper pacing, enemy placement, platforming challenges or whatever applies (could be navigating obstacles in a shmup) etc., and a progression from one level to the next, too, something that can't be done by putting together disparate elements at random. As for AI, Sarge makes a good point. In a lot of genres, you're usually outnumbered; if all enemies were really that smart, there'd be literally nothing you can do. Really good AI - ie comparable to a good human player - works well in games were the power level between you and your opponent is equivalent.
|
|
|
Post by Ex on Jun 7, 2019 14:05:17 GMT -5
Tecmo Super Bowl would jack up CPU stats / R.C. Pro-Am would kick in a ridiculous speed boost for a racer if you built up too large a lead Those are amusing anecdotes of old-tech exploitative AI ( Mario Kart's rubber-band AI also comes to mind), but aren't examples of what I'd consider intelligent AI behavior in a modern sense. Every roguelike I've ever played ends up with generic and boring levels. Replayability is moot because the game is never that fun to play in the first place. something that can't be done by putting together disparate elements at random. I don't agree with your statements, but considering the argument on both sides is entirely subjective, taking the issue further will gain neither of us any ground. I do however, understand your position and where your standpoint is originating from. However keep in mind, you have never played a randomly generated shmup, so you can't say such a thing would never work objectively at this point. Defeatist thinking like that is why most folks can't handle Urban Reign or God Hand.
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Jun 7, 2019 14:24:08 GMT -5
I was using those examples as a way to illustrate how older games compensated for bad AI, not that they were good in any way. You could shred the competition otherwise. I'd routinely put up scores of 70+ to nothing in TSB. I'd actually get aggravated if I let a team score in a game! All that goes out the window for the playoffs.
And yeah, R.C. Pro-Am's implementation was a more binary version of Mario Kart's infamous rubber-banding AI. It was a one-way street, though: you didn't get the same benefit if you fell too far behind.
As for Urban Reign, even that has some clear holding back on the part of the AI. A concerted swarm would destroy even a competent player... but I don't quite know what they do in the highest difficulty level. Normal was brutal enough!
|
|