A Sprite

- The Videogame Critic Anyone play this game on the actual hardware? In sut's new gamebase, it works fine...

Man I remember the days when talking about the NES would get you bitched at on r.g.v.c. But yeah, there's still NEW development for PS2. No way you can argue it as classic. It can be moved if it's wrong for this forum. I only included it here because it's tied into the thread about collecting for the systems.

Lynx is 16bit with built in sprite scaling. ( It's 3D games are a generation ahead. ) The Game Gear has the edge in colors displayed and a higher screen resolution. ( Ninja Gaiden 3 for the Lynx offered less detail than many Colecovision games - the Gamegear would have less trouble and could enhance the sprites. )

http://www.atariage.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=117664

I go with 3 over 2 because of the ability to take out your opponents: people who haven't played games since the Atari era got into it as quick as current gen players and nongamers, something I'd never seen before.

My list was going to be Pong, Space Invaders, Pac-Man, Street Fighter 2, and Daytona - but if we're writing our favorites... 5. Virtua Fighter 2 - The final underwater dance makes no sense; it's only there for the quiet bullet time grace. A meditation where every thought has a consequence; it's a one of a kind experience. 4. Dragon's Lair - As much about not touching buttons as it is knowing which buttons to touch. Holding back until the moment is right goes against every natural instinct... 3. Ghouls 'n Ghosts - Every small step further is it's own reward. 2. Guilty Gear XX - I swear I've met these people... 1. Gyruss - Galaga is the best pure shooter made, but this is the best shooter story ever told. I know one day I'll find my way back home.

( same post posted twice after an edit. Please delete)

Much as I love the last gen, I gotta admit, the haters have a point - even I can't play half the games I own and still have time for friends and family. So, for those of us who are still into gaming for the polygon generations, but don't have time to get epic, what games are worth looking out for? Here's the five that worked for me - 1. Burnout 3 - Any game that offers a mode where the whole idea is to create a crash that does as much damage as possible is off to the right start. Unlockables unlock fast, you're rewarded for driving into traffic with more speed - this concept would work in any generation, but it was the last generation that made it happen. 2. House of the Dead 3 - the first gun game that works fine without a gun. This game is so accessible that I turned my best friend's nongaming mom into a hardcore zombie killing machine. Only one thing went wrong with this plan - 3. State of Emergency ( X-Box version only ) There is a mode here, where there are two hundred people in uniform fleeing from you, and it's your job to kill them all. Add in the custom for extra wrong, and you have a package no older woman in her right mind can resist. She bought her own X-box just so she could play the game...too bad there was only one TV. 4. Crazy Taxi: "Hey Hey Hey, you have 3 crazy minutes -" Sold. 5. Tony Hawk's Pro Skater ( 1, 2, 2x and 3 ) No enemies, no storyline, no vast worlds to conquer. There's just a few seconds as you fly into the air, to see what you know how to do, and if after you do it, you can still land on your feet.

It's my favorite generation despite having my least favorite graphics ( Hello, uncanny valley. ) Between all the new classics ( Beyond Good and Evil, Metroid Prime, Resident Evil 4 ) and the bargain retro compilations ( Midway Arcade Treasures 1, Zelda Collector's Edition, and approx 1,339,234 MegaMan and Sonic the Hedgehog games scattered through multiple discs ), it's the first generation where anyone was heard to complain there wasn't enough time to play all the good games.

Allow me to be the devil's advocate. Most review systems were created during the 8 bit era, when a 5 or less meant the graphics the scanner made with it's feet flickered in and out of sight, the game would run at half speed, and attempting to punch the skateboarder 3 times in the face to kill it meant taking a mandatory hit that knocked Batman 10 feet back into the deep puddle of instant death. Nobody makes a game that bad these days. Those that came later, could count the polygons in a bad game on one finger, and could count on the camera getting the best view of Laura Croft's crotch while they were playing Tenchu. Nobody makes a game that bad these days either. Except for Red Ninja. So what is a game critic to do? Simulations finally have the power to be sim like, RPG's can show up to 50 emotions per scene, whether they need them or not, and only die hard sports fans can even play the sports games anymore. Everyone else making a game peeked at Miyamoto's answers. Games like "The Guy Game" and "Big Rig Truckers" keep us reminded of what a bad game looks like, but how often do they come around? We need to redefine mediocrity. What is a 4 out of 10 in this day and age? Well even back in the 8-bit era not many games received exceptionally low reviews. There were a lot less 9s and 10s given out but games scored at 5 are below were still very uncommon. I think there was a lower median, but the extremes of 1,2,3 and 4 were used just as infrequently. Added in edit: I think when you look at what's a 4 out of 10 in this day in age you have to grade on a curve relative to the era. Some problems like bad control and level design make a game from any era lousy. Other problems like bad graphics for its time, or an overused gameplay mechanic can make a game today uninspired or "below average" which is where the 4 should be used. Now take it one step further down the path of creative rot - what seperates a 3 from a 4, and a 2 from a 3? What does a 4 drop at your feet that isn't offered in any number below it? Can a failing grade still point out to a developer what potential there is in a game, or is it just a tool for releasing emotion?

1. Kill the floor and ceiling textures, they eat up cpu power, and nobody cares about them. 2. Simplify wall textures - A graphic novel solid black for every shadow with the bare minimum visual aids for doors and control panels is an easy way to keep far away details from slowing down the action. Only draw enough details to hint at the technology underneath up close - imagination is more important than the actual graphic. 3. Flickering is your friend - in Doom, you can get away with that trick in heavy graphics areas by simply having the lights be unreliable. Have the lights go out occasionally, and only be available in a way that makes them look like they could go out in any second. Add the sounds of the monsters stalking you, and a weakness becomes a strength. To the coders - would these changes make up the speed? If not, maybe the best 1st person shooter would be one that's based on stealth and intelligence?

Allow me to be the devil's advocate. Most review systems were created during the 8 bit era, when a 5 or less meant the graphics the scanner made with it's feet flickered in and out of sight, the game would run at half speed, and attempting to punch the skateboarder 3 times in the face to kill it meant taking a mandatory hit that knocked Batman 10 feet back into the deep puddle of instant death. Nobody makes a game that bad these days. Those that came later, could count the polygons in a bad game on one finger, and could count on the camera getting the best view of Laura Croft's crotch while they were playing Tenchu. Nobody makes a game that bad these days either. Except for Red Ninja. So what is a game critic to do? Simulations finally have the power to be sim like, RPG's can show up to 50 emotions per scene, whether they need them or not, and only die hard sports fans can even play the sports games anymore. Everyone else making a game peeked at Miyamoto's answers. Games like "The Guy Game" and "Big Rig Truckers" keep us reminded of what a bad game looks like, but how often do they come around? We need to redefine mediocrity. What is a 4 out of 10 in this day and age?

-Newsweek

I agree with the analogy but perhaps for a different reason. It's that to get one you generally have to spend a lot of money and you don't get much bang for your buck Unless you like a challenge, and you like it a little rough. If we're going to go for a sexist analogy, she's a wildcat. That said, I collect for the Gameboy micro. ...! Does that make me Catholic? I think it means that to you size doesn't matter. Here is an image comparison (it doesn't do it justice since you can't see how thick the Neo Geo Stuff is) I pulled out the AES, and a micro for comparison and just for the hell of it an AES cart. So does size really matter? I guess it depends what you do with it.

I agree with the analogy but perhaps for a different reason. It's that to get one you generally have to spend a lot of money and you don't get much bang for your buck Unless you like a challenge, and you like it a little rough. If we're going to go for a sexist analogy, she's a wildcat. That said, I collect for the Gameboy micro. ...! Does that make me Catholic?

Rereleased for the PSone.

It's worth noting you meant Panorama Cotton as being Megadrive exclusive. Original Cotton came out on a lot of systems (and even was twice released in English). Thanks for preventing any confusion, and much love to you for not forgetting the Neo Pocket. As punishment for being too lazy to type in the full name, I replaced all the salt in my diet with chloride...

Sword of Vermillion: There's a cursed item that lowers your stats forever. The glitch is that it can take your stats past zero if you abuse it, only instead of negative numbers, you start back at the high end of the number table - becoming a God inside the game world.

Good call on Mario - Miyamoto admits the Beatles were an influence.

Sure, why not. I didn't list them above since I don't know much about imports. I guess I should make introductions then... Cotton: (Megadrive exclusive) Think arcade Space Harrier/After Burner meets Saturday morning cartoons. The bad guys are burning the magical candy that brings light to the world. You play the witch who wants to eat all the magical candy that brings light to the world. Who will destroy all the light in the world first? Apocalyptic joke of the storyline aside, this is what all 3D shooters on a 16 bit machine should be - the action is fast, the sprites scroll smooth. If you only owned a Genesis at the time, this was your StarFox. Yuu Yuu Hakusho Makyou Toitsusen: (Megadrive exclusive) Take the two layer fighting of the Neo Geo's Fatal Fury series; add in the option to invite two more players. Now that the series it's based on aired in America, it's only copyright law keeping it off the Wii. Sega Devil's Crash vs. the Wii/Turbo version.

Counting imports? Devil's Crash: the Megadrive version has exclusive bonus stages. Panorama Cotton: best 3D shooter. Yuu Yuu Hakusho Makyou Toitsusen: 4 player fighting game developed by Treasure.

Did that come out after Slot Machine (Atari)/Slots (Sears) for the VCS? Another one.

Since it's late my time and I don't feel like writing any sort of extensive mini review the basics of the game are as follows. The game has great cel shaded animation for characters, familiar environments to anyone who has played the earlier Dragon's Lair arcade games and a decent sized quest for an adventure game. The games protagonist Dirk the Daring moves and handles awkwardly, he slides too frequently on jumps and control over how and where he attacks is limited leading to frustration with missed hits of enemies. While the level design has a great deal of aesthetic appeal due to nice looking environments many of which are modeled after scenes from the arcade classic, there are many platforming elements which go beyond just difficult to frustrating due to the games sloppy control scheme, in many areas jumps need to be very precise in order to land without falling off of your target. In addition to the aforementioned problem with hitting enemies, being able to see where enemies are coming from can be problematic due to camera problems, the games angle does at times (particular in boss battles) switch beyond the players control and often times you can't see where an enemy is coming from. It's particularly noticeable with flying enemies (say for example bats) who can attack you nearly undetected depending on the camera angle). This game also has a few "It's not a bug, it's a feature" elements that are sure to turn a lot of gamers off. In keeping with the tradition of the original Dragon's Lair a number of obstacles stand in Dirk's way which kill him instantly, certain types of enemy attacks or other hazards can kill Dirk in a single hit regardless of his life bar (yes, there is a life bar). This is designed intentionally as an homage to ways Dirk would die in the original Dragon's Lair but is lost on most players of the game as a frustrating way to die instantly when you have a full life bar. With an extra 6 months to a year in development time of merely cleaning up the game engine, camera problems and refining the controls Dragon's Lair 3D could have been a fantastic game, but in its current state it is a title that should really only be recommended to die hard fans of the original arcade game. Based on what I've said (though not as detailed or as lengthy as any sort of published review would normally be) hopefully you can draw your own conclusions as to whether or not you're enthusiastic about the title. I owe you one. That was longer than many of the published reviews I read...I wasn't expecting any of my questions to actually be answered in depth, this late at night. Now I know I want the game. Thanks. Are you here anonymously? I'd like to read more of your work; but won't press the issue given the nature of this site...

Well, I basically agree with that assessment. I think it is worth noting that to make a substantial difference in the quality of graphics would have far more than doubled the price at which point the platform wouldn't have been a consumer viable product. Where the N64 was in terms of 3D rendering capabilities at its release in 1996 wasn't that far behind much much much higher priced PCs. The only step up that would have made a measurable difference would have been to SGI type hardware which would have made the price astronomical. The technology did technically exist to make a noticeable difference, but my comments earlier with regard to its specifications not being the bare minimum for 3D due to price were but rather due to the technology were made with regard to technology that was available at a consumer market viable cost. To make a system with significantly better 3D performance would have minimally quadrupled the price since as I mentioned earlier the technology to make a significant difference in 3D rendering wasn't even being shipped with PCs at the time Added in edit: Also with regard to placement in the comparative timeline. There were 3D 16-bit games. The AH3 Thunderstrike, Virtual Racing, Star Fox, among other titles that appeared on 16-bit systems to me represent the Fairchilds of 3D gaming. The Jaguar and 3DO being perhaps the 2600s and the Saturn and Playstation being the Intellivisions and the N64 being around the 5200 or Colecovision. Again it's all a matter of perception Fair enough. <---accidentally edited out my manners. Either way, our side wins. The N64 should be thought of as a new beginning, not an evolution of the SNES. Edit: Just because it's fun to imagine what might have been - improved textures and higher polycounts would have knocked the N64 into nearly a grand, but consumer grade PCs at the time could display games at a resolution equal to a NTSC television screen - for the cost of just enough built in ram to pull off Zelda in high definition without access delays, the N64 would have been the only system not actively assaulting anyone's eyes at the time. On the other hand, $500 and only two games at launch, I wouldn't want to be their media liason.

Yeah, but you wind up with inflated scores (or too low of scores) based on what types of fans are in higher numbers at the media outlet allowing the fan reviews. This is why GameFaqs polls and such usually wind up with Final Fantasy (or related characters) winning. Because their fans are in higher numbers at that particular outlet than anywhere else. As far as the concept of a fan review having a "new" experience as being an advantage, it's also a disadvantage in adequately ranking the value of a game. For example, I might play Rayman having not played any platformers in years and think it's great, But without the experience of having played Mario, Ratchet and Clank and other 3D platformers it's hard to judge how good this game is of a value for the money since I have nothing to compare it to. As a professional reviewer it's my job to be informed enough about games to say this game ranked 9.0 is a better worth your time (and money if the price is equal) than this game ranked 7.5 and another game ranked 7.0 so that readers of my review can know what game is likely to be the best purchase. Obviously everyone has individual tastes and they differ from person to person, but games usually fall around a certain range for most experienced professional reviewers which is why sites like GameRankings are so important in creating averages. Yes, there's bad professional reviewers out there, GamePro is certainly not well regarded for the integrity of their editorial content since you used them as an example, but an average of review scores from professional reviewers generally yields for more accurate results of the quality of a game (to most people) than does fan reviews based on experience. Added in edit: Here's a few other thoughts. First off there are also games that as a reviewer I might enjoy but realize are fundamentally flawed products. A great example of this for me personally is Dragon's Lair 3D it's a game I can't recommend. But I'm a big fan of the original arcade game (as well as of Don Bluth's animation) and I personally found a great deal of enjoyment in the fan service provided in the game. The actual game itself is incredibly frustrating, poorly paced and has terrible camera and control problems. But I enjoyed it, it's a game that I couldn't actually give a fair review to since I'm well aware 99% of the population wouldn't have found the redeeming qualities I found in the game to at all make up for its rather substantial deficiencies. Also, I am a big fan of calling out reviewers on doing a poor job. Years ago IGN had a review of Tactics Ogre on PSone which for all intents and purposes claimed the title was a Final Fantasy Tactics knockoff. The author of the review failed to realize Tactics Ogre was a much older game than Final Fantasy Tactics and though the title was released in North America after Square's game hit the market, Tactics Ogre is actually what Final Fantasy Tactics was based on, and not the other way around. IGN shortly thereafter pulled the Tactics Ogre review. The Virtual Fighter 3 situation sounds to me like a reviewer who didn't take the time to learn the intricacies of the game. In some circumstances this can be difficult and in the past has been acommon problem for reviewers who have a large plate of games to review and a fast approaching editorial deadline. However it's also no excuse for doing a poor job. I believe in everything you said; I guess I didn't make it clear that I regard fan reviews as a supplement to professional reviews, not a replacement. We part ways only in one area: As a reader of your Dragon's Lair game, I'd want your recommendation of the game, as a fan, side by side with the objective reviewer's thoughts, even if it failed to meet the industry standards for play control ( Was it a question of a delayed response due to the graphics taxed from the system, which many people can adjust for, by treating it as a timing puzzle - or a lack of functionality leading to the computer offering multiple responses to the exact same button presses when not ignoring them completely? The two problems aren't equal.) camera ( showing off leading to reversed controls, or are you struggling to turn a camera that actively hides life or death situations from the players view? ) and pacing. Sometimes graphics and sound, and all the other frosting we usually try to ignore, can create enough reward on their own that a bad game becomes a guilty pleasure. And those kinds of bad games shouldn't be allowed to slip away from those of us blessed with the bad taste to forgive them their sins. Besides, a great bad game is better for your brain than a decent average game; you've convinced me to buy it, if I ever see it in stores. Would I be as enthusiastic if I'd read your published review?