Support NeoGAF

[Tain]

How far do you want to take this? There are people who are unable to progress beyond a single screen of every game that has ever been made. That is not proper argument for the design space of a given game (or genre).

Think of it like a linear graph plotted by every possible input combination and a successful output coming out the end. On the far left side, there is a game where you press any input and you achieve a success state. On the right side, something so complex, no human mind could comprehend. Brawlers, exist much further on the left side than fighting games. Many genres exist further to the right of brawlers, RTS games, 4x games, some strategy and RPG games, competitive FPSs, among many others. Saying someone can see the merits of design depth/complexity of fighting games as compared to RTS games makes sense. Saying that they should see it in Brawlers doesn't.

I don't like the input and success state comparison. If you're going to measure depth, you have to measure the difference between the most skilled and least skilled players, even in games that aren't directly competitive. We'd have to establish the best way to measure skill at a belt scroller (it might be for score, it might be by some other player-chosen criteria in the case of throwaway scoring systems, etc). It isn't simply a matter of reaching the end game credit scroll unless that's also how you want to measure fighting games. Of course, we measure the complexity of fighting games by judging human versus human matches. I absolutely assume fighting games have a bigger gap, though I'd put the well-made arcade belt scroll games to the right of, shit, quite a few genres.

Anyway (lol), I never compared them to fighting games. I was solely addressing your doubt that someone could be measurably "good at" a game like Streets of Rage. It's so utterly obvious that they could, even if they are simpler than the spectrum of human fighting game competition.

 

[Ranger X]

Its one of those rare games where I don't think a sequel would top the originals.
How in the fucking world can you design a better brawler than SOR2 and 3?
I mean, seriously.

BUT STILL, I supposed its theorically possible since sometimes the impossible happens. I thought Super Mario Bros 3 wouldn't be topped for like 20 years and more but then New Super Mario Bros Wii happened.

 

[thesolidshark]

I've always had an idea of what a good SoR 3D sequel would look like, and since it looks nothing like the concepts in those past tries, I'm glad they never made it that far.

1-3 + Remake is good enough for me honestly. I'd love to see spiritual sequels, but my expectation of a new SoR game would be pretty high, including Yuzo being required to do some or all work on the soundtrack.

What developers would you guys trust with sequel? And what was the last good beat'em up anyone's played outside of SoR?

 

[uncledonnie]

Its one of those rare games where I don't think a sequel would top the originals.
How in the fucking world can you design a better brawler than SOR2 and 3?
I mean, seriously.

BUT STILL, I supposed its theorically possible since sometimes the impossible happens. I thought Super Mario Bros 3 wouldn't be topped for like 20 years and more but then New Super Mario Bros Wii happened.

Yeah I felt that way about Shinobi 3 but then Overworks dropped Shinobi PS2 and it was a whole different but incredibly awesome animal. Would have really loved to see what they could have done with a 3D SoR.

 

[Shpeshal Nick]

Would you still pay for this game if you didn't have a previous attachment to it or the genre assuming its reasonably priced? I've met quite a few folks who loved playing it for the first time, and BEUs in general, via emulation and they asked me if there were more like it. I've met plenty who didn't care much for old BEUs down to issues related to its age. I think there's a pretty healthy audience out there for a game about being forced to run a gauntlet and be able to beat the odds by busting heads, but it's hampered by retro audio-visuals and the classic issues of repetition. With the right kind of hindsight and the right wrapper, making some concessions to modernity and its gamer, I think it would totally sell. Some of the most popular games and biggest sellers today are arguably not much more complex than SoR even if they appear to be light years ahead.

I don't doubt it's ability to sell as a whole. I just doubt it's ability to succeed as a full blown production.

As much as I adore the genre, even I'd be reluctant to drop $70-$90AU on a Streets if Rage 4. But again, I'm limited in my thinking in terms of how it could be updated for today.

Happy for someone to explain the inadequacies of my thought process.

 

[Timu]

Golden Axe: Beast Rider.

Spoiler

Though I would be somewhat happy for a HD remaster if done right.

I thought I was the only one who remembers that game.

And same for me in that spoiler.

 

[Pachael]

I always saw Spikeout as the true successor to Streets Of Rage, shame the arcade version was never ported to consoles. I really don't like any of those concepts shown in OP. They really don't seem to capture the spirit of the SOR series in particular part 2, the best of the series. Also it just wouldn't be the same without Yuzo Koshiro providing the soundtrack. The music was a big part of why i loved the game so much.

Ditto. Spikeout and to a lesser extent Ryu ga Gotoku continue Sega's beat em up legacy though by now it's more akin to an action game with great melee fighting rather then what SoR was.

Also I do recall Spikeout for Xbox but unfortunately I don't remember it being received well at all.

 

[Teeth]

I don't like the input and success state comparison. If you're going to measure depth, you have to measure the difference between the most skilled and least skilled players, even in games that aren't directly competitive. We'd have to establish the best way to measure skill at a belt scroller (it might be for score, it might be by some other player-chosen criteria in the case of throwaway scoring systems, etc). It isn't simply a matter of reaching the end game credit scroll unless that's also how you want to measure fighting games. Of course, we measure the complexity of fighting games by judging human versus human matches. I absolutely assume fighting games have a bigger gap, though I'd put the well-made arcade belt scroll games to the right of, shit, quite a few genres.

You can't just measure the difference between the most and least skilled players because it takes the focus off of the game and onto the players playing it. A game could require such a high skill level that no human could master it and it would have a greater level of depth than the division between the least and most skilled players.

Games are real time finite state machines. They deliver outputs at 60Hz (more or less) based on inputs and the occasional randomly generated number.

Any game with a navigable 3D space already has a huge amount of complexity that no 2D game would ever have. A game with no navigable avatar would automatically have less. But just because you could run over every pixel in a virtual space doesn't create a good measure of depth because they are almost all null-success rated states in the machine. That's why it takes measuring successful states to examine its depth space.

You could get into a whole other measure of metrics, like influence of random numbers (or results) on success states, as random results favor novices and reduce skill ceilings. Also, the more limited a successful set of possible states, the lower the skill ceiling. It doesn't matter whether someone has achieved them, it's just math and design theory.

I'm not even going to get into theories like yomi, which is completely absent in non-direct competition games. You can't directly affect someone you are competing against (and therefore measuring skill level) in a speed run judgement of skill.

Finally, whether belt scroll brawlers have a larger depth pool than other genres is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

 

[Tain]

You can't just measure the difference between the most and least skilled players because it takes the focus off of the game and onto the players playing it. A game could require such a high skill level that no human could master it and it would have a greater level of depth than the division between the least and most skilled players.

I left out a "theoretical", sure. Measuring the differences between the highest possible level of play and the lowest possible level of play (no need to even bring up humanity) is where you get the meaningful complexity of a game, which also cuts out all the fluff complexity you talk about when comparing 3D and 2D games. Subjectivity factors in figuring out what these measurements are, but they do in determining success states as well.

You could get into a whole other measure of metrics, like influence of random numbers (or results) on success states, as random results favor novices and reduce skill ceilings. Also, the more limited a successful set of possible states, the lower the skill ceiling. It doesn't matter whether someone has achieved them, it's just math and design theory.

I'm not even going to get into theories like yomi, which is completely absent in non-direct competition games. You can't directly affect someone you are competing against (and therefore measuring skill level) in a speed run judgement of skill.

All of these would be covered by measuring theoretical best and worst play.

Finally, whether belt scroll brawlers have a larger depth pool than other genres is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

It's relevant solely to your confusion as to how someone could be considered "good at" a belt scroll game, which I guess you've already doubled back on by saying your statement wasn't an absolute one.

 

[SonyToo!™]

SoR is one of the few SEGA games that I'm happy for there to be no direct sequel as it would probably be terrible anyway.

That is unless SEGA handed SoR to Ark System Works who did well with Hard Corp's Uprising close to it's arcade root's and not make it into an ARPG with 8bit graphics and gameplay

 

[Rhazer Fusion]

I hear constant mentions of SOR: Remake, but what good is the awesome SOR: Remake if it is impossible to play now(at least on a MAC computer)? The Streets of Rage series is arguably my favorite franchise of all time, but Sega seems to hate the franchise now. Maybe it is better off dead since it seems like Sega only cares about Sonic, SOnic, SOnic, SONIC, SONIC now and I doubt they will put it in good hands anyway. Yeah, it probably wouldn't even touch SOR1, let alone SOR2 and SOR3. They will probably outsource it to the lowest tier developer they can find and then complain when the quality isn't there. They will not give us another Shenmue, offline Phantasy Star or Streets of Rage. I gave up on classic Sega franchises a long time ago.

 

[klee123]

The only way I'd accept a new SoR game is if it was made in the vein of Hard Corps: Uprising from Arc System Works

 

[IrishNinja]

looking back at Fighting Force, we really dodged a bullet there - also Project Y could be pretty awesome as an alternative, later this year

That's fine. At least 2 and the Japanese version of 3 were phenomenal games. And there was that pseudo fan-remake a while back. Sega can't put that genie back in the bottle.

I'm willing to let it go.

^also this
i think 1 gets left off of too many lists, but i do get why 2 surpassed it in nearly every way (though the OST is still god-tier)

 

[ZekeThePlumber]

Streets of Rage: Remake was pretty damn good. Too bad Sega C&D the hell out of it and then proceeded to let one of their most beloved Genesis franchises go back to collecting dust.

 

[dlauv]

It took them a long time to get beat 'em up mechanics right in 3D with the Arkham games.

I don't consider Bayo, Rising, and DMC as beat 'em ups because they're far too intricate and intense, but they're a great off-shoot evolution of the genre.

SoR2 is probably still my favorite beat 'em up. It's slower than SoR3, but on the whole felt a bit better. Great stage art, great music, and just the right amount of depth to the mechanics. If you play well you can still clean house even on Hardest. As much as I would like a sequel, I can't help but figure they would have the wrong talent on the project if most of that concept art is indicative of the kinds of studios they keep employing.

 

[rokkerkory]

This thread makes me sad

 

[Tizoc]

Beat'em-up games like SoR just won't be too popular in this day and age if a new one is made, but TBH I'd settle for TaxmAn remasters of the trilogy on PC/Steam, PSN/XBL.

 

[Teeth]

I left out a "theoretical", sure. Measuring the differences between the highest possible level of play and the lowest possible level of play (no need to even bring up humanity) is where you get the meaningful complexity of a game, which also cuts out all the fluff complexity you talk about when comparing 3D and 2D games. Subjectivity factors in figuring out what these measurements are, but they do in determining success states as well.

All of these would be covered by measuring theoretical best and worst play.

So you're saying that by analyzing the complexity of the system, and taking into account all of the theoretical possibilities (since we can't actually measure the human's playing it, because they are a data-limited and possible data-capped sample set) therein, we could aptly determine which state machine has more success states (as defined by our own criteria, hopefully based on the game's dictated rule set)?

Then excellent, we agree.

It's relevant solely to your confusion as to how someone could be considered "good at" a belt scroll game, which I guess you've already doubled back on by saying your statement wasn't an absolute one.

I wasn't confused about anything, it was a figure of speech.

 

[isamu]

Streets of Rage Remake is the best thing until someone gets it done.

+1 & [/thread] !!!!!!!!!

Seriously MightyHedgehog nailed it! SoRR is the pinnacle! All someone needs to do is crack into it some more and make it online compatible with up to 4-players. Then we're done! End of story.

I looked at those screenshots and concept art drawings for those cancelled games and all I can say is thank god they got canned. All of them look terrible. We don't want no 3D or even 2.5D in our SoR games! Keep it purely bitmaps and sprites, but make them hi-res ala Blaz Blue, KoF XIII, etc.

**HOWEVER**......with that having been said, I STRENUOUSLY advise you all to play Dungeon Fighter Online in the meantime! Seriously...it's the closest thing we're gonna get to a "Streets of Rage 2014" It's honestly what a 2D Beat 'Em Up should be in this day and age. Sure it doesn't take place in a city environment, and sure only one character is actually a fist brawler, but its gameplay is highly similar to SoR and its depth is unmatched.

Check it out.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=819814

 

[isamu]

I'm not looking for anything. I'm responding to the poster who called out someone else for liking fighting games and not seeing the alleged depth in brawlers.

I agree that there is a lot of depth in character action games, they are the logical evolution of brawlers (and why, in my opinion, brawlers rightfully died out in the modern age).

I think the real challenge for some upstart brawler evolver dev would be to somehow combine the depth of a CAG within a classic brawler co-op design. Anarchy Reigns probably comes the closest.

Teeth. I was going to write a ridiculously lengthy reply about your endless criticism towards the beat em up genre's lack of depth, but instead I'll just say this.....GO PLAY DFO!!!! Just. Go. Play. It. Seriously, it's 100% free until next Friday. It contains all the classic hallmarks of the BEU genre but has more depth than most fighting games, I shit you not. Play DFO and then get back at us dude.

There's nothing 'alleged' about the depth in those games because they're as deep as they need to be for what they are. The genre varies in what kind of focus you want, but you have to remember that these games were typically meant to be played co-operatively, appeal to a wide range of player skill levels, and finished in relatively short periods of time, not multiple hours of a single playthrough but a single hour if that.

Every time I see someone shrug off these games because they don't have the range of options that a fighting game or single player 'character action game' has, I'll argue that they're exactly as deep as they need to be for the experience they're offering. No one is keeping detractors from moving on to the various offshoots of the BEU if they don't find what they're looking for within the classic set of games from its peak twenty some years ago.

 

[isamu]

Alien vs Predator
Final Fight 3
Die Hard Arcade
Dungeons and Dragons: Shadow over Mystara
Warzard
Battle Circuit
Captain Commando
Turtles in Time
Marvel: Infinity Gems
Fighting Force
Streets of Rage 3
Spikeout
Sengoku 3
Armored Warriors
Urban Reign
God Hand
Anarchy Reigns
Phantom Dust
Guardian Heroes
Dungeon Fighter Online
Castle Crashers
Scott Pilgrim
Charlie Murder
Dragon's Crown
Muramasa
Viewtiful Joe

I just want to point out that this is ALMOST the most definitive list of BEUs I've seen....*but*.....you missed:

Golden Axe
Mega Man: the power fighters
Vigilante
Violent Storm
The Sunset Riders
The Combat Tribes
...and most of all, Double Dragon.