mbd30 Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 "In my mind, that is without a doubt, the worst Arcade to home console port ever released." You love hyperbole, don't you? It's single player and has some graphical issues, but it's still quite playable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
78001987 Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 "In my mind, that is without a doubt, the worst Arcade to home console port ever released." You love hyperbole, don't you? It's single player and has some graphical issues, but it's still quite playable. The game's entire attraction is the two player simultaneous feature. Maybe it should be called "Single Dragon". or "Dragon Fighter". or maybe just "Don't buy this Piece of Shit". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
78001987 Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 thought the point of double dragon was to save the girl while kicking ass, learned something today and at the end, with two players you get to fight each other. except in the NES version. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbd30 Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 The game's entire attraction is the two player simultaneous feature. Hardly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
78001987 Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 Hardly. You realize, that's why it's called Double Dragon in the first place, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbd30 Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 I admit that it is a bit weird to have a single player "Double Dragon", but it is still playable as a single player beat 'em up with decent graphics and controls for the time, so it is hardly the worst arcade port ever. And I don't agree that a beat 'em up such as this needs to be played two player in order to be fun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbd30 Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 You realize, that's why it's called Double Dragon in the first place, right? Yes, it's weird, but that doesn't make it the worst arcade port ever. Would you rather play the Atari 2600 version, LOL? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
78001987 Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 Yes, it's weird, but that doesn't make it the worst arcade port ever. Would you rather play the Atari 2600 version, LOL? Actually, given what we're discussing here, the 2600 port of Double Dragon is WAAAAAY more impressive than the NES, considering the hardware limitations and that the 2600 is nearly 10 years older. and yes - the 2600 version even has 2 player simultaneous mode. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
empsolo Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 (edited) Hilarious how the two people who want to argue the most, are also the two who resort to idiotic 4chan/reddit dork-speak.Dork-speak? Says the guy crowing about a 30 year old system that could barely find a market that wasn't Atari die-hards. Some of those can be fun, sure - But Double Dragon for NES is an absolute abomination. The game is called Double Dragon SPECIFICALLY because the Arcade (and 7800, and SMS, and every other version) allows Two Simultaneous players. That's the whole point of the game. Yet they left it out of the NES version, and still delivered flickery, watered down graphics as well. In my mind, that is without a doubt, the worst Arcade to home console port ever released. Except Double Dragon didn't have simultaneous 2 player mostly due to the fact that Technos did not have previous experience porting those types of games over to the system. Once they got the hang of it, this was corrected in later releases of two and three. That being said, simultaneous 2 player wouldn't make much sense within the context of the main story anyway. Edited January 14, 2016 by empsolo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leods Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 PAC Man on the 2600 is not bad, it's just creative. It's not crap like DD on NES. Seriously. You guys better just ignore. If there was doubt of the Indisposition of 44565 towards the NES, now there isn't, so why waste your time... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
78001987 Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 (edited) Except Double Dragon didn't have simultaneous 2 player mostly due to the fact that Technos did not have previous experience porting those types of games over to the system. This is unacceptable. Period. If you don't know how to do it, don't do it. Don't just go out and sell a half finished game, and slap an arcade name on it when it's mostly a different game. That being said, simultaneous 2 player wouldn't make much sense within the context of the main story anyway. That being of course, the "main story" that was completely changed to fit the NES version's limitations, from the way the story is in literally EVERY other version of the game in existence. Edited January 14, 2016 by 78001987 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
78001987 Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 PAC Man on the 2600 is not bad, it's just creative. It's not crap like DD on NES. Seriously. You guys better just ignore. If there was doubt of the Indisposition of 44565 towards the NES, now there isn't, so why waste your time... No - Pac-Man on the 2600 (the original, anyway) is god-damn terrible. Nearly as bad as NES Double Dragon. The difference? for pac-man 2600 to be as bad as NES Double dragon - it would need to be missing the energizer pills. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VectorGamer Posted January 14, 2016 Author Share Posted January 14, 2016 PAC Man on the 2600 is not bad, it's just creative. It's not crap.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbd30 Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 (edited) Actually, given what we're discussing here, the 2600 port of Double Dragon is WAAAAAY more impressive than the NES, considering the hardware limitations and that the 2600 is nearly 10 years older. And because of those hardware limitations, it's horrible. Sorry. It's not better than the NES version just because it has two player simultaneous. Some games they shouldn't have even tried to port to the Atari 2600 and this is one of them. Edited January 14, 2016 by mbd30 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbd30 Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 No - Pac-Man on the 2600 (the original, anyway) is god-damn terrible. Nearly as bad as NES Double Dragon. The difference? for pac-man 2600 to be as bad as NES Double dragon - it would need to be missing the energizer pills. "Donkey Kong Jr." for the Atari 2600 doesn't have fruit that you can drop on enemies, and it looks and sounds awful. Is that worse than NES "Double Dragon"? NES "Double Dragon" can't be the only arcade port in existence to remove a two player co-op option. I won't even consider this a huge blow to a port as long as the one player game is still playable and fun, and NES "Double Dragon" is a decent one player game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
78001987 Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 (edited) And because of those hardware limitations, it's still horrible. Sorry. It's not better than the NES version just because it has two player simultaneous. Some games they shouldn't have even tried to port to the Atari 2600 and this is one of them. I don't disagree. It is awful. Terrible. and they never should have tried to port it to the 2600, it's just too complicated of a game to do it justice. Which, in my mind, makes what they did with the NES version that much worse. They absolutely could have made the NES version way better, but didn't. These are the same complaints everyone makes about the 7800. I don't understand how that kind of poor game design and lazy coding is considered "awful garbage" on one system (7800), but forgivable and ok on another (NES). And that was my whole point from the beginning, that the same problems that NES fans criticize the 7800 and SMS for exist just as often for many games on the NES, yet they make excuses or gloss over that entirely when discussing it. Edited January 14, 2016 by 78001987 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbd30 Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 I don't disagree. It is awful. Terrible. and they never should have tried to port it to the 2600, it's just too complicated of a game to do it justice. Which, in my mind, makes what they did with the NES version that much worse. They absolutely could have made the NES version way better, but didn't. The NES version is way better than the Atari 2600 version in every way except the two player simultaneous. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
78001987 Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 "Donkey Kong Jr." for the Atari 2600 doesn't have fruit that you can drop on enemies, and it looks and sounds awful. Is that worse than NES "Double Dragon"? NES "Double Dragon" can't be the only arcade port in existence to remove a two player co-op option. I won't even consider this a huge blow to a port as long as the one player game is still playable and fun, and NES "Double Dragon" is a decent one player game. But that's just the thing. Double Dragon's entire claim to fame, it's reason for existence, the whole reason it became popular as an Arcade game in the first place - was the whole concept of a 2 player co-op simultaneous fighting game. IT was the first. IT spawned an entire genre of games. and they left that out. it's just.... unforgivable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbd30 Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 The claim to fame of "Double Dragon" is also that it is a fun beat 'em up. The core gameplay is still fun in single player mode (or it wouldn't even be fun with multiple players) and the NES port is fun and playable despite not having co-op. You're trying too hard to justify an obviously silly hyperbolic comment that you made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
empsolo Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 This is unacceptable. Period. If you don't know how to do it, don't do it. Don't just go out and sell a half finished game, and slap an arcade name on it when it's mostly a different game. Again, this was Technos' decision since they wanted to cash in on the popularity of the arcade game in the home console market as soon as possible. If you want to blame anybody blame Technos but not the NES itself. That being of course, the "main story" that was completely changed to fit the NES version's limitations, from the way the story is in literally EVERY other version of the game in existence. It was popular enough with gamers that it's fondly remembered as a great game in it's own right and warranted sequels on the NES. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
78001987 Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 Again, this was Technos' decision since they wanted to cash in on the popularity of the arcade game in the home console market as soon as possible. If you want to blame anybody blame Technos but not the NES itself. It was popular enough with gamers that it's fondly remembered as a great game in it's own right and warranted sequels on the NES. Fine - blame Technos. It's still only the NES version of this game that has this problem. And when NES fans point to the library of "good games" as it's strong point, that includes all the 3rd party developers as well, so it's all the same. This is one that failed. Yet it's still regarded as good/great by NES fans. I guess that means NES fans have a fairly high tolerance for crapola. The sequels were Arcade games as well, and the NES versions were decent ports of those. It's not like the success of the original NES is what made them happen. They exist because the arcade versions exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
empsolo Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 Fine - blame Technos. It's still only the NES version of this game that has this problem. And when NES fans point to the library of "good games" as it's strong point, that includes all the 3rd party developers as well, so it's all the same. This is one that failed. Yet it's still regarded as good/great by NES fans. I guess that means NES fans have a fairly high tolerance for crapola. The sequels were Arcade games as well, and the NES versions were decent ports of those. It's not like the success of the original NES is what made them happen. They exist because the arcade versions exist. It's this bullshit that really bugs me. Arcade purists who demand that all games conform to the arcade standard. Without pausing to ask whether or not it would be fine to play games that were tailored to the home console for this reason or that. The fact of the matter is that I had fun playing for hours ,as a kid, playing my version of Double Dragon as did kids my age. We had fun. Deal with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbd30 Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 This is one that failed. In your fringe opinion. It's widely regarded as a good game. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+thegoldenband Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 I loved NES Double Dragon as a kid, and I played the arcade version quite a bit too, so it's not like I didn't know any better. It wasn't anything unusual for home versions of arcade games to offer a different experience. Frankly, it has a hell of a lot more depth than the arcade game, which -- much as I'm fond of it, and enjoy a playthrough from time to time -- basically amounts to "elbow smash everything", plus constant slowdown. The NES version is more tactical and measured, and I find it a more rewarding challenge. It's also buggy and occasionally unfair, of course, but the basic gameplay is just about pitch-perfect. The Genesis port is fairly faithful, but the gameplay feels strange and off-kilter. Plus, you play it for 20 minutes and that's it, done, the game has nothing more to offer. I beat it on my first try, IIRC. Having "the arcade experience at home" was never that exciting to me once we got past the games of the mid-1980s, because a faithful port would give you a game with a very short shelf life. Space Invaders is one thing, but Double Dragon isn't the kind of game where I care about chasing high score; the point is to beat it. Now, Bad Dudes was an example of a NES port that suffered badly from the lack of 2P, because they didn't really do anything to make up for it. There are a few annoying 1P-only brawler ports on the Genesis, too, like Growl, though at least that one throws a ton of enemies on the screen at once. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torr Posted January 15, 2016 Share Posted January 15, 2016 (edited) I guess this thread should just be renamed: "If you don't like the NES you must be brain damaged"or "It's Troll Feeding Time!!!" I prefer the former, because I agree somewhat agree with 78001987... in GENERAL... veeeery general! But a lot of his comments are just sooo off the wall you'd think he MUST be trolling; but even if he ISN'T trolling, I can't belive people are taking THIS much time to argue with him... let him love the 7800 and call it a day!!! *edit: Now, if he made THIS many crazy posts WITHOUT anybody attacking him for disliking the NES, he just went post crazy about the 7800, then we would KNOW he's a troll, or actually brain damaged... Edited January 15, 2016 by Torr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
AtariAge on Instagram
Watch us on YouTube
Chat on Discord
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.