| Original message ([an error occurred while processing this directive] Views )[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
Replies:
|
| Grave
73th Post
 
Occasional Customer
  
|  "Re(1):Beat 'em up's: slowest evolving gaming "
, posted Sat 18 Jan 11:38
quote:
I have finally had the chance to play VF4Evo. The word EVO sort of triggered this question where thew hell the evolution is- basically beat 'em ups are on the same play level that Tekken2 and Viritua fighter2 have reached 1996! What do you think- how can and more importaint SHOULD beat 'em ups evolve at all?
My idea is a beat 'em up with Super Mario/Zelda mechanics- you can basically move freely, but you can lock on enemies like in zelda where you can use common specials but risk beeing hit, because you limit your movement- think about it- complete free movement would also make the games playble for more than four people (online-gaming).
Any critics, ideas and stuff?
Well, to me, there's a big difference between a beat 'em up and a fighting game. The phrase "beat 'em up" makes me think of stuff like Final Fight, Streets of Rage, the TMNT arcade games, Simpsons arcade game, Captain Commando, the list goes on.
On another thread I was just talking about the lack of them. I think Viewtiful Joe is the first game like that that has appealed to me in a while. Dynasty Warriors is like that, I guess, but on a much, much larger scale, and it's a lot more complicated than the old formula.
When I think of fighting games, I usually think of one-on-one fighters, and by one on one I mean one at a time, tag matches still counting. Of course, then there's stuff like Super Smash Bros and Power Stone which play more like a cross between a fighting game and a beat 'em up, and throw that definition out the window.
Personally, I think the way Power Stone controlled was good for a game like that. 4P mode was kinda tough in PS2 because it was hard to tell exactly where you were, but damn, 2P in PS could be insanely fun, and PS2 was also.
I think the reason a lot of fighting games haven't gone in this direction would be because it's kind of good that a 2D plane is restrictive. Even in 3D games like VF and Tekken, you're still lined up with your opponent, even when you sidestep. This limits where you can go, and this makes the fight a lot more direct. You basically can only attack in two directions, and that makes control easier. When you're dealing with full 3D movement, the control method changes a lot. Command moves like we know now wouldn't be possible because you need to be able to move everywhere with the stick. Hadoken and DP motions aren't going to be much good to you in 3D, even forward and backward tapping, unless you had to lock onto someone, and when you lock on, you'd be locked in a line with them.
Maybe it hasn't been explored because of that, there are so many ways to do it but none of them seem terribly obvious. Limiting all attacks to buttons would be simple, but it'd also not give you much of a variety of attacks, and... I don't know. Change doesn't necessarily mean evolution. I'm pretty happy with fighters as they are now, both 2D and 3D. I just want some interesting inventions WITHIN the games we have now. They don't need to destroy their whole gameplay system for it.
Sorry if none of that made sense. It seems kinda logical to me, but I don't know.
|
| Sensenic
214th Post
Frequent Customer
 
| "This fighting game I'd like to see:" , posted Sat 18 Jan 14:31:
quote:
I have finally had the chance to play VF4Evo. The word EVO sort of triggered this question where thew hell the evolution is- basically beat 'em ups are on the same play level that Tekken2 and Viritua fighter2 have reached 1996! What do you think- how can and more importaint SHOULD beat 'em ups evolve at all?
My idea is a beat 'em up with Super Mario/Zelda mechanics- you can basically move freely, but you can lock on enemies like in zelda where you can use common specials but risk beeing hit, because you limit your movement- think about it- complete free movement would also make the games playble for more than four people (online-gaming).
Any critics, ideas and stuff?
It'd be difficult to program, but I'd like to see a fighting game with "realistic" (and well implemented) life & energy systems:
1- The energy level wouldn't depend on combos or whatever, just like as it is: first the fighter has all the strength and he/she gets tired along the combat, being able to stop and take a breath to recover.
Every attack and move would take out a little from the bar, and every special and/or combo would take out a little more, varying proportionally on its "intensity".
So, it would be a la AOF, but more decisive, so a low energy bar would mean no strong attacks and an empty bar would mean exhaustion -> "you lose". Exhausting the rival would be a possible & considerable way to win a combat.
2- As for life, something similar to... erm... it was Bushido Blade from Square I think: No meaningless bar, what determines KO would be the physical state, being every body part independent from the others. So, for example, if you'd get hit much in the leg you wouldn't lose the combat, you'd just get your leg hurt so it'd be harder to move. A too hurt chest (or a very strong hit to it) would mean a bad injury or asphyxia, so combat lost. In the head, well, just KO.
To make it more realistic there could even be another grade/state/level beyond "badly hurt": for an extremity it'd mean "lost" or "amputed" -ouch-, and for body and head just "dead", being the other character disqualified. So, if you kill your enemy -> "you lose" too (unless the game becomes some kind of MK).
Even more, a "pain" meter could be added so one character could be KOed without being hit directly in the head (remember that pain scale that appeared here some time ago in Professor's CVS2 scale thread).
And that's all. Me longest post here, me thinks.
Himawari chan ain't she cute?
Stick a fork in us we're done.
-Commander Boston Low-
[this message was edited by Sensenic on Sat 18 Jan 14:46] |
| Gen 1204th Post
Red Carpet Executive Member
  
    
    
| "Re(1):Beat 'em up's: slowest evolving gaming " , posted Sat 18 Jan 21:42
Probably just seems like little change relative to other genres because of paying more attention to the fighting genre.
No genre comes to mind that's had super progress in 20 years.
I agree that fighters don't have enough changes from game to game. KOF is an example, even though it's my favorite fighter. I feel like Playmore owes us for 98-2002. I could go back even farther.... Now that I'm on the subject I'll give my point of view. This is the short version:
98 was a dream match. blah. I want a story! (I didn't know this game wasn't officially part of the story for probably atleast a year after I first played it  , and I had found out via internet message boards. At first I didn't believe it...)
99-2001 had strikers. strikers had almost no point except for memorized giant combos. Memorization is borring and too unspontaneous. The strikers couldn't even help you when you were in trouble which is lame. before 99, your onscreen buddies would help you get out of a bind, but no more. I wrote SNK, Eolith, and Playmore letters in the past asking them to not have strikers in future games, or change the strikers so they can at the very least help you when you are in a bind, which is what they should do. strikers suck.
2002 it's good that they finally ditched the striekrs, but it's another dream match dream match blah. There's so much unfinished and story from previous games that they could easily do with little effort.
|
|
|
MESSATSU 
